Prevalence and risk factors for lameness in insulated free stall barns in Finland

Livestock Science 156 (2013) 44–52

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Livestock Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/livsci

Prevalence and risk factors for lameness in insulated free stall barns in Finland$ K. Sarjokari a,n, K.O. Kaustell b, T. Hurme c, T. Kivinen d, O.A.T. Peltoniemi a, H. Saloniemi a, P.J. Rajala-Schultz e a University of Helsinki, Department of Production Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Paroninkuja 20, FI-04920 Saarentaus, Finland b MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Economic Research, Latokartanonkaari 9, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland c MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Plant Production Research, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland d MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Animal Production Research, Vakolantie 55, FI-03400 Vihti, Finland e The Ohio State University, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, 1920 Coffey Road, A100A Sisson Hall, Columbus 43210, OH, USA

a r t i c l e in f o

Keywords: Housing Free stall Dairy cow Lameness

abstract Lameness is a painful condition that alters physiology and behavior of dairy cattle. The main objective of this study was to explore the prevalence of lameness in dairy cows, and its association with housing and herd management. Another aim was to identify poorly functioning structures and equipment that may contribute to increased lameness. Data on herd management, and barn design and functionality were collected in 87 herds, and the gait of 3459 cows was scored. Of the cows scored, 23% were lame (lameness scores 3–5; from slightly abnormal gait to severe lameness). The median within-herd lameness prevalence was 21%, ranging from 2 to 62%. The association between cow level lameness risk and cow specific risk factors was modeled with a logistic regression analysis. The odds ratio (OR) for lameness was for Holstein cows 1.6 (CI 1.3–1.9) times higher than for Ayrshire cows. Second and 3+parity cows were more likely to be lame than first lactation cows; OR 2.1 (CI 1.7–2.8) and 6.0 (CI 4.8–7.7), respectively. A herd level lameness prevalence estimate, accounting for the effects of cow’s breed and parity, was used as an outcome in modeling housing and management related risk factors. Lameness prevalence was lower in herds with a feed barrier divided to separate feeding places (0.17), compared to the ones with a post-and-rail (0.24). The lameness estimate was higher in herds with very slippery floors (0.31) than in herds with slightly slippery (0.16) or firm floors (0.16). The prevalence of lameness was associated with the width of a walking alley next to the feeding table, being 0.17 for herds that had alleys wider than 340 cm, and 0.23 for herds with an alley narrower than 320 cm. Lameness estimate (0.18) was lower if water was supplied from water cups only compared to water being supplied water from both cups and troughs (0.23). Most farmers had not adjusted neck and front rails properly in stalls, and had hard stall surfaces, compromising cow comfort. More than a half of the studied herds had problems with manure removal and urine drainage. Those findings suggest that there is a great need to educate dairy farmers and construction planners of the benefits and factors contributing to claw and leg health. Also, more emphasis should be placed to proper manure removal and urine drainage. & 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

☆ This paper is part of the special issue entitled: Lameness and claw lesions in sows, cows and small ruminants, Guest Edited by Prof. Dr. D. Maes and Prof. Dr. G. Opsomer. n Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 400616642; fax: +358 196851181. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K. Sarjokari), [email protected] (K.O. Kaustell), [email protected] (T. Hurme), [email protected] (T. Kivinen), [email protected] (O.A.T. Peltoniemi), [email protected] (H. Saloniemi), [email protected] (P.J. Rajala-Schultz).

1871-1413/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.010

K. Sarjokari et al. / Livestock Science 156 (2013) 44–52

1. Introduction

2. Material and methods

Lameness is a painful and stressful condition that alters both physiology and behavior of dairy cattle. Lame cows have allodynia and as a result, lower nociceptive thresholds than nonlame cows (Laven et al., 2008; Whay et al., 1998, 1997). Lameness is most often a result of claw lesions, or infectious lesions in the surrounding skin caused by improper feeding, poor production environment and suboptimal herd management (Frankena et al., 2009; Greenough, 2007; Murray et al., 1996). Lame cows have problems in performing optimally in free stall environment, because they are less active than nonlame cows. They have longer lying times (Calderon and Cook, 2011; Walker et al., 2008), take fewer steps per hour (O’Callaghan et al., 2003) and walk with slower speed and shorter steps (Telezhenko and Bergsten, 2005) compared to their sound herdmates. Also, they are more often displaced by other cows (Galindo et al., 2000), and have lower body condition scores (Walker et al., 2008). Lame cows have decreased reproductive efficiency (Bicalho et al., 2007; Hernandez et al., 2005; Walker, 2010), a reduced milk yield (Amory et al., 2008; Green et al., 2002), and an increased culling and mortality risk (Bicalho et al., 2007; Rajala-Schultz and Gröhn, 1999; Thomsen and Sorensen, 2009), compared to healthy cows. Lameness leads to significant economic losses because it is very common (Cook, 2003; Espejo et al., 2006; Sanders et al., 2009), and has long lasting consequences (Frankena et al., 2009; Green et al., 2002; Laven et al., 2008). Farmers do not notice lame cows early enough to minimize the losses (Rutherford et al., 2009; Whay et al., 2003). While several studies have explored lameness in dairy herds in free stall barns, revealing risk factors like dirty and hard walking surfaces (Bewley et al., 2001; Cook, 2003), competition at the feed bunk (DeVries and von Keyserlingk, 2006; Huzzey et al., 2006; Olofsson, 1999) and uncomfortable stalls (Dippel et al., 2009; Espejo et al., 2006), the roles of barn facility design and herd management in the incidence and prevalence of lameness is not totally clear yet. Therefore, the objectives of this study were: (1) to determine prevalence of lameness in dairy herds in insulated free stall barns in Finland, (2) to explore the association between lameness with housing design and herd management, and (3) to identify the influence of poorly functioning structures and equipment in dairy barns that may increase lameness.

2.1. Sampling, inclusion and exclusion criteria Study herds were selected among the herds in the Finnish national dairy herd recording database, operated by ProAgria Agricultural Data Processing Centre (http:// www.mloy.fi), and previously described and used by other authors (Gröhn et al., 1984; Kyntäjä and Niskanen, 2007; Olsson et al., 2001). All herds in the database with a mean herd size greater than 40 (n ¼785) were invited to participate in the project. From the volunteers (n ¼158), 87 herds fulfilled the inclusion criteria; (1) herd was housed in an insulated barn at least for two years, and continued to be housed there during the survey, and (2) the barns had a traditional milking parlor where lameness scoring could be done after normal milking.

2.2. Lameness scoring and collection of other data Prevalence of lameness was estimated in the study herds between February and May 2005, at the end of the indoor feeding period. Cows’ gait was scored according to a five point scale (described in Table 1), modified from a lameness scoring system published by Sprecher et al. (1997). In each herd, scoring was performed by one of the three veterinarians who had all been similarly trained for the study; they were shown a video on lameness scoring, taught the difference between classes of lameness, and they all practiced lameness scoring together on a farm. Scoring was done for all cows after milking as they walked out of the milking parlor. Every cow lactating at the time of the herd visit was scored. If cows were not properly seen, or they trotted or galloped when exiting the parlor, they were excluded. Information on herd management and farmer’s opinion on barn functionality were collected first, with a questionnaire sent to the farmers (107 questions). Data on barn design and cow’s environment were collected during farm visits (between January and May 2005) by researchers who had been trained for data collection (standardized questionnaires, 266 observations or measurements). Cow and herd level data on breed, parity, yield, culling and diseases, from the year of 2004, were received directly from the national herd recording database.

Table 1 Lameness scoring system used in the studya. Gait score

Interpretation

Description of the gait

1 2 3 4 5

Normal Mildly lame Moderately lame Lame Severely lame

Walks normally with a flat back Walks otherwise normally except an arched back Slightly abnormal gait; short stride with one or more legs Clearly lame, but still bears some weight on all legs Almost complete weight transfer off an affected leg

a

Modified from Sprecher et al. (1997).

45

46

K. Sarjokari et al. / Livestock Science 156 (2013) 44–52

2.3. Statistical analysis Descriptive statistics were first calculated on the data. Both STATA (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) and SAS (SAS, Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) softwares were used. Cow specific risk factors for lameness (Model 1) were examined by performing a logistic regression analysis with a GEE (generalized estimating equations) population averaged model using STATA version 11.2 and xtlogit procedure with an exchangeable covariance correlation structure. The modeled outcome was lameness (yes/no) based on the gait score, whereby for the analysis the cows were classified as healthy (scores 1 and 2), or lame (scores 3 to 5). The examined categorical variables were: breed (Holstein or Ayrshire) and parity (1st, 2nd, or 3 +). The scorer and scoring surface were controlled for in the model as fixed effects. Clustering of the observations within herds was accounted for by including herd as a clustering effect in the model. Given the small number of explanatory variables, all of them were initially included in a full model. Residual analyses were performed to explore basic assumptions of logistic regression and model fit according to Dohoo et al. (2009). Herd level lameness prevalence estimates were used as an outcome in examining housing and management related risk factors for lameness (Model 2). Estimates were created for each herd by fitting a logistic model to cow level lameness scores data having herd, cow’s breed, and parity as a fixed effect in the model. This approach was selected because the herd level lameness estimates were also needed for the phrase analysis, described later. The effects of housing and management related risk factors for lameness were examined by fitting a linear model to the herd level data using the SAS software 9.2. Key assumptions of the model; independence, homoscedasticity, normality of residuals, and linearity of predictor–outcome association (Dohoo et al., 2009), were examined in every step of the model building procedure. The residual analysis revealed a need to transform the outcome, and a square root transformation was done. In Model 2, several risk factors potentially associated with lameness were tested. The tested continuous herd level variables were: herd size, milk yield, time from moving heifers to the group of lactating cows before expected calving, feeding space per cow at the feed bunk, space per cow in the walking alleys, manure removal times per day. The tested categorical herd level variables were: where the cows in heat were separated from the group of lactating cows or not, hoof trimming times per cow per year, use of outdoor run, grazing, type of feed barrier, number of cows per concentrate feeding stations, stocking density, stall length, stall width, stall slope, stall softness, thickness of bedding in stalls, bedding material in stalls, height of front rails in stalls, height of neck rail in stalls, distance of neck rail from rear kerb, solid or slatted resting area for heifers, solid or slatted alley floor, alley floor slipperiness, width of the walking alley next to the feeding table, year of initial moving of cows to the free stall barn. Scorer and scoring surface were included into the model as confounders. Due to incompletely filled questionnaires, all the requested data were not received for all herds.

The median number of missing data was two out of 87 per variable, and 5% in total. The modeling procedure started with testing the effects of potential risk factors for lameness individually against the outcome. A variable was kept in the modeling process if its associated P-value in the Ftest was smaller than 0.05. Next, all the significant variables were included jointly in the model. The model was reduced by removing non-significant variables one by one, starting with the least significant. The final model explained 76% of the variation in the data, and was based on the data of 73 herds. After fitting the final model, the lameness estimates and their confidence intervals were transformed back to the original scale, to facilitate interpretation of the results. 2.4. Phrase analysis A total of 1096 comments on barn functionality, made either by the farmers or the researchers visiting the farm, were recorded. The reviewed comments originated from 85 herds. The comments were transcripted, scanned and coded for indications on target of the comment (e.g. feeding alley), related functional subsystem (e.g. feeding, manure removal), functional property in question (e.g. alley width or sloping), and the resulting weakness or benefit (e.g. “cows disturb each other” or ”all cows lie down in stalls”). Special attention was paid to structural, equipment, and management related issues. To add contrast to the phrase analysis, the coded comment data were divided into quartiles according to the herd level lameness prevalence estimate. The phrase analysis results are thus reported as related to “the best” vs. “the worst” quartile herds. 3. Results 3.1. Herd properties and housing In 2004 the median herd size of the study herds was 49 cows, ranging from 40 to 105. The mean parity of the cows in the study herds varied from 1.8 to 3.3, the average across the herds being 2.3 (SD ¼0.3). The mean calving interval was 389 days (SD ¼15), and on average the herds used 1.8 services per calving (SD ¼0.3). The mean milk yield of the herds was 8984 kg (SD ¼775) per cow per year. First parity cows yielded on average 7613 kg (SD ¼892), and 2+parity cows 10,068 kg (SD ¼1065) per cow per year. In most herds, the cows were initially moved to the free stall barns between 2000 and 2002 (71%, n ¼60), and in the rest between 1994 and 1999 (29%, n ¼25). At the time of the farm visit, most barns had been in use for 3–5 years. Most barns had three (78%, n ¼68), four (11%, n¼10), or two (8%, n ¼7) stall rows; the rest two barns had either five or one stall row. The most common milking stations were herringbone (48%, n¼41) or tandem parlors (48%, n ¼41). Two barns were equipped with a parallel, one with a rotary, and one with both herringbone and tandem parlors. Floor surfaces in all but two barns were concrete, and almost as often slatted (52%, n ¼44) as solid (48%, n ¼41). The floors were evaluated as firm in 36 herds (46%), slightly slippery in 38 herds (49%), and very slippery

K. Sarjokari et al. / Livestock Science 156 (2013) 44–52

in four herds (5%). Mean width of the walking alleys next to the feed bunk was 352 cm (SD ¼31), and between two stall rows 233 cm (SD ¼23). Feeding space varied from 34 to 90 cm per cow in the group of lactating cows, the median being 53 cm. Fortyfour herds (51%) had a post-and-rail feed barrier, and 42 herds (49%) a type of barrier that was divided to feeding places (with headlocks, feed stalls, or other kind of separators). The mean number of cows per a concentrate feeding station in the lactating group was 20 cows, varying from 11 to 43 cows. The automatic feeders were not equipped with a protection gate in 62 herds (90%). All farmers who did not have the gate reported that while eating at the feeder, the cows were frequently disturbed or interrupted by others. The majority of the herds (66%, n ¼56) had at least one stall per cow, but overcrowding was observed in the lactating group in the rest of the herds (34%, n ¼29). The level of overcrowding was less than 5% in 18 herds, from 5 to 10% in five herds, from 11 to 15% in three herds, and from 16 to 20% in three herds. The stalls in double rows were on average 231 cm (SD ¼12) long, and otherwise (mostly facing the wall) on average 242 cm (SD ¼16) long. Most herds had slightly sloped (2–4%) stalls (83% n ¼64), with rubber mats (81%, n ¼43) or mattresses (19%, n¼10), bedded with a less than 3 cm layer of saw cutter and/or peat (76%, n¼65) or without any bedding (14%, n¼12). Most stalls were 120 cm (67%, n ¼58), or 121–132 cm (26%, n ¼22) wide. The neck rail was placed on average 107 cm (SD ¼6) above the stall surface, and the mean distance from the rear kerb was 162 cm (SD ¼14, Fig. 1). The placement of the front rails in the stalls is illustrated in Fig. 2. 3.2. Herd management The cows were milked twice daily in all herds. In most herds (74%, n ¼64) TMR was not used, and concentrates were fed separately from silage in concentrate feeding stations. In majority of the herds (93%, n ¼79), the lactating cows were all kept in one group. Dry cows were most often kept in their own one group (97%, n ¼83). During the transition period, heifers were most often (55%, n ¼46) transferred to a group with lactating cows 1 month–2

Placement of neck rail in studied herds distance above cubicle surface

distance from rear kerb

number of herds

15

10

5

0 90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

cm

Fig. 1. Placement of neck rail in studied herds.

190

200

47

Fig. 2. Placement of front rails in the studied 87 herds.

weeks before expected calving. Most farmers (55%, n ¼45) transferred the heifers as a group. In most herds the cows in heat were separated from the group sometimes (57%, n ¼48) or always (31%, n ¼26). Sixty-four % of the herds (n ¼53) were grazing during summer. Outdoor exercise area was in use in 24% (n ¼20) of the herds, and 17% of the herds (n ¼14) used it in winter. On average the cows used the outdoor run six times a week (from 2 to 7) in summer and twice a week (from 1 to 7) in winter. A professional hoof trimmer was used in 83 herds (98%); only two farmers trimmed the herd themselves. Most farmers (68%, n ¼57) aimed at trimming the hooves of every cow once or twice a year. The mean annual (year 2004) culling percentage of the herds was 35% (SD ¼12), varying from 16 to 83%. The mean culling age of the cows was 4.6 years (SD ¼0.6). On average, 2% (SD¼ 0.2) of the cows in a herd were culled because of foot and claw problems, which was the fifth most commonly reported culling reason (6% of the culled cows), after mastitis (25%), reproductive failure (17%), low yield (11%), and poor udder form (10%). 3.3. Lameness prevalence and risk factors Of the 3459 cows scored for lameness, 23% were lame (lameness scores 42). Of all the cows, 17% were scored as 3; 5% as 4; and less than 1% had a score of 5. The median of the herd lameness prevalence was 21%, ranging from 2 to 62% (Fig. 3). The best 10% of the herds had prevalences less than 7%, and the worst 10% of the herds had prevalences greater than 41%. Holstein cows had higher odds of being lame than Ayrshire cows (OR¼1.6, CI ¼1.3–1.9, Table 2). The odds increased with parity; both second parity cows (OR ¼2.1, CI ¼1.7–2.8), and 3+parity cows (OR¼6.0, CI ¼4.7–7.7) were more likely to be lame than first parity cows. In testing of housing related risk factors (Table 3), lameness prevalence was associated with walking alley slipperiness, feeding alley width, feed barrier model, and type of water supply. Lameness estimate was significantly larger in herds with very slippery floors (0.31), than in herds with slightly slippery (0.16) or firm (0.16) floors. Lameness estimate was smaller if the feeding alley was

48

K. Sarjokari et al. / Livestock Science 156 (2013) 44–52

Prevalence of lameness in the studied 87 herds herds are sorted by the prevalence

60

Table 3 Housing and management related risk factors for lamenessa.

percent of lame cows in the herd

Variable

40

20

0

Fig. 3. Prevalence of lameness in the studied 87 herds.

Table 2 Cow specific risk factors for lamenessa. Variable Breed Ayrshire Holstein–Friesian Parity 1 2 3+ Scorer 1 2 3 Scoring surface Solid Slatted Combination of solid+slatted

OR

SE

95% CI

P-value

1 1.55

0.16

1.27–1.90

o 0.001

1 2.14 6.04

0.28 0.75

1.65–2.78 4.75–7.70

0.148 o 0.001

1 0.41 0.16

0.05 0.03

0.31–0.53 0.11–0.22

o 0.001 o 0.001

1 1.76 0.83

0.34 0.13

1.20–2.58 0.60–1.13

0.004 0.227

a Dependence of the observations (n¼ 3459) within herds (n ¼87) has been controlled for as having herd as a clustering effect in the model.

wider; 0.17 for herds that had alleys wider than 340 cm, 0.22 for herds that had alleys between 320 and 340 cm, and 0.23 for herds that had alleys narrower than 320 cm. Lameness estimate was significantly smaller in herds with a feed barrier divided to separate feeding places (0.17), compared to the ones with a post-and-rail barrier (0.24). Lameness estimate was smaller if water was supplied from water cups only (0.18), compared with supply from both cups and troughs (0.23). 3.4. Farmers’ and researchers’ perceptions of barn functionality A total of 206 comments on barn functionality concerning slipperiness, feed barrier, alley width, manure removal, water supply, stalls, or other lameness related risk factors were received. More comments (14.5 per farm on average) were received from the herds that were categorized into the worst quartile based on herd lameness estimate than from the best quartile herds (12.2 comments per farm). Twenty percent of all comments (n¼65) from the worst quartile farms were related to factors shown to

Floor slipperiness Firm Slightly slippery Very slippery Width of the feeding alley, cm o 320 320–340 4 340 Feed barrier type Post-and-rail Divided to feeding places Water supply from Water cups only Cups and troughsc Scoring surface Solid Slatted Combination of solid and slatted Scorer 1 2 3

Lameness estimateb

95% CI

P-value

0.005 0.16 0.16 0.31

0.14–0.19 0.14–0.20 0.22–0.41 0.070

0.23 0.22 0.17

0.19–0.27 0.17–0.26 0.13–0.22

0.24 0.17

0.19–0.28 0.15–0.21

0.18 0.23

0.15–0.21 0.18–0.28

0.20 0.26 0.16

0.17–0.24 0.20–0.33 0.12–0.20

0.36 0.20 0.10

0.31–0.42 0.16–0.25 0.07–0.13

o0.001

0.031

0.011

o0.001

a The final model is based on observations of 73 herds, and it explained 76% of the variation in the data. Some of the data were missing; on floor slipperiness from nine herds, on water supply from six herds, on width of the walking alley from two herds, and on feed barrier type from one herd. b Modeled mean of the lameness estimates transformed back to the original scale. The outcome of the model was a square root transformation of herd level lameness estimate; created for each herd by fitting a logistic model to cow level lameness scores data, having herd-id, cow’s breed, and parity as fixed effects in the model. c Water supplied with troughs and cups, or with only troughs (one herd).

predispose to lameness, and 45% (n¼ 29) of these concerned manure systems. Twice as many negative, manure systems related comments were received from the worst quartile herds than from the best quartile herds. Manure removal and manure system related comments were mainly observations of three reoccurring problems: (1) excess liquid accumulation on alleys due to poor concrete casting, missing inclinations or lack of drainage of alley floors; (2) frequent breakdowns of manure removal equipment; and (3) bad physical design of parts of manure removal equipment, which causes claw trauma. Dry alley surface, due to good draining, was mentioned as a positive feature among the best quartile. The post-and-rail type feed barrier was said to allow feed/roughage to be moved onto the feeding alley thus clogging the slatted floor. This causes problems with manure removal. Incorrect height and horizontal positioning of the feed barrier were judged to create an abnormal eating position for the cow. Every fourth comment (n¼52) on lameness related factors dealt with stalls. Several positive (n ¼10), and only three negative comments were collected from the best quartile herds. From the worst quartile herds, 14 negative remarks, and only three positive comments were made of stalls. Positive remarks were made about softness,

K. Sarjokari et al. / Livestock Science 156 (2013) 44–52

adequate bedding, and use of mattresses in stalls. Negative comments dealt mostly with too hard stall surfaces, use of saw dust as litter, missing slope, incorrect stall dimensions, or false equipment adjustments. Slipperiness of alleys was the third most (9%, n¼18) commented lameness risk factor. Among the best quartile, there were comments about meshing of the concrete floor surface or rubber mats leading to non-slippery surfaces. Narrow alleys were commented as a negative feature because of the cows’ inability to pass each other freely. Old standards for alley dimensions, and changes in the final layout due to dimensioning problems during construction and installation of equipment, were mentioned to account for this problem. On two farms among the worst quartile, door openings or alleys were reported to be too narrow to allow a claw trimming frame to be brought into the facility. All in all, clearly fewer comments on alleys were received from the best and worst farms (n ¼4) than in the middle quartiles (n¼ 17). 4. Discussion Prevalence of lameness in the present study was more than 21% in half of the herds. The median of the herd lameness prevalences was less than that reported in the US (Cook, 2003; Espejo et al., 2006), Austrian and German studies (Dippel et al., 2009; Rouha-Mulleder et al., 2009), but much higher than reported in Norway (Fjeldaas et al., 2011; Sogstad et al., 2005), where free stalls have been introduced quite recently. The differences in the prevalences in these studies are likely to be a result of many things; for example lameness scoring methods and cutoff scores used, herd management, stall properties, disease status of infectious claw diseases, breed selection and milk yield differ between study populations. More fruitful than comparing the prevalences between studies is to explore housing and cow related risk factors for lameness. 4.1. Housing related risk factors for lameness The association between lameness estimate and the type of feed barrier in this study was an interesting finding. Lameness was less prevalent if the feed bunk was divided into feeding places, compared to a post-andrail barrier. Most likely, the reason for this is that the divided type leads to less competition, shorter standing times, and less claw trauma during feeding, as can be deducted from the results by earlier authors. With more competition at the feed bunk, the number of place changes, agonistic and aggressive behavior, and relative standing time increase (DeVries and von Keyserlingk, 2006; Huzzey et al., 2006; Olofsson, 1999). The type of feed barrier has an effect on the amount of competition during feeding; there is less changing of places and fewer cow displacements by herdmates at a feed barrier with headlocks (Endres et al., 2005; Huzzey et al., 2006) or feed stalls (added partitions between individual cow’s bodies in the feed bunk; DeVries and von Keyserlingk, 2006), compared to a post-and-rail barrier. Especially subordinate cows benefit from feed barrier that is divided to feeding places, particularly during times of peak feeding activity

49

(Endres et al., 2005), at high stocking densities (Huzzey et al., 2006) and with limited feed bunk space per cow (DeVries and von Keyserlingk, 2006). In most herds in this study, the feed bunk space per cow and the space on the walking alley next to the feeding table were scarce, compared to the current recommendations (Anon., 2010, 2012) leading to at least moderate competition during feeding. Surprisingly, in the present study, lameness estimate was bigger in herds where water was supplied from both water troughs and cups, compared to supply with water cups only. A possible explanation can be errors in the placement of water troughs, and insufficient number of them. There is some competition around water troughs (Miller and Woodgush, 1991), and water consumption peaks after milking and feed delivery (Cardot et al., 2008). It is advised to use adequate number of troughs in a group, and to place the troughs in locations with enough space available for cows to pass each other (Anon., 2010). If the water troughs situate in a place that is too narrow or not drained adequately, cow traffic may be stalled, leading to excess standing in hard and wet circumstances, and possibly to claw trauma as a result of avoiding and rapidly giving way to dominant cows. The lameness estimate in the present study was smaller if the walking alley behind feed bunk was wider (at least 340 cm compared to less than 320 cm). This result was not surprising, as it has been reported that most of the so called “agonistic behavior” (behavior to determine and maintain hierarchy in herd) takes place in the feeding alleys (Miller and Woodgush, 1991), and reducing space allowance leads to an increase in agonistic and aggressive behavior (Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002; Kondo et al., 1989), which in turn can lead to longer standing times and claw trauma as described in the previous paragraph. Comfort of the stalls was not satisfactory in most of the farms in this study. However, they were evaluated in 2005, and had been built according to the knowledge and recommendations prior to 2002. The stalls were often short, and stall surfaces were hard, usually covered with thin rubber mats and a small amount of bedding. These facts could have contributed to the relatively high lameness prevalence observed, even though the effects of those variables were not significant in the multivariable model for herd level lameness estimate in this study. Cows prefer soft and well bedded stalls where they lie longer, stand less with only front hooves in stalls, and have less hock lesions and lameness than in lesser bedded stalls (Tucker et al., 2003; Tucker and Weary, 2004; Weary and Taszkun, 2000). Espejo et al. (2006) reported 11% lower lameness prevalence (17% vs. 28%) in high producing cow groups in barns with sand stalls compared to barns with rubber mattresses. Calderon and Cook (2011) have reported significant decrease in lying time from 16 days pre to 6 days postpartum (from an average of 14 to 10 h per day), and a dramatic increase in the number of lying bouts around calving (from 11 to 18), especially among lame cows (20 bouts). These findings and an earlier study on changes in the support structures of bovine hooves around calving (Tarlton, 2002) suggest that great emphasis should be placed on optimal standing and lying comfort of transition

50

K. Sarjokari et al. / Livestock Science 156 (2013) 44–52

cows and pregnant heifers, especially during the transition period, to increase welfare of cows in transition period and to prevent lameness in early lactation. Many farmers in this study had adjusted the neck and front rails improperly, which disturb the movements of the cows and discourage the use of the stalls. Poor stall design, or incorrect stall adjustment, increases lameness because it leads to difficulties in lying down and getting up in stalls, and to decreased lying times and increased standing on hard and soiled walking alleys. Longer standing time on walking alleys or standing half in stalls (“perching”; front feet in stall, hind feet on alley) increases the risk of claw lesions and lameness (Dippel et al., 2011; Galindo and Broom, 2000; Leonard et al., 1996). Restricted neck rail position (closer to the rear kerb) has been shown to increase “perching” (Bernardi et al., 2009; Tucker et al., 2005). More than a half of the herds in this study had problems with manure removal and urine drainage; 29% of the collected comments, based on farmer’s and researcher’s perceptions, dealt with manure systems (pinpointing problems with excess liquid accumulation on alleys, frequent breakdowns of manure removal equipment, and claw trauma caused by parts of manure removal equipment). Lameness can be reduced by improving manure and urine removal, as it is known that standing and walking in dirty, hard, and slippery surfaces predisposes to lameness (Bewley et al., 2001; Cook, 2003). Moreover, the use of manure scrapers on slats has shown to be associated with less interdigital dermatitis or heel erosion, and digital dermatitis (Somers et al., 2003). Floor type, slatted compared to solid, was not significant in the lameness model in this study. Even though the urine drainage is better on slats, reducing the risk for lameness, the slats can be harmful to claws in other ways (e.g. increasing the risk of trauma) as reported by some other authors. Somers et al. (2003) found no differences in claw lesions of cows kept on solid or slatted floors, but observed significantly less digital dermatitis on slatted floors in a later paper (Somers et al., 2005). A Norwegian research group has reported more white line fissures but less hemorrhages or heel erosions (Sogstad et al., 2005), and less dermatitis but worse locomotion scores observed by claw trimmers (Fjeldaas et al., 2011) on slatted compared to concrete floors. Rouha-Mulleder et al. (2009) reported that there was less lameness on solid concrete compared to slatted floors, and that slatted floors were significantly more slippery than concrete floors, and that in 75% of their study farms there were deficiencies (e.g. decayed in the contour lines) in slats. Kujala et al. (2010) reported higher odds for white line disease in slatted than concrete floors. Some previous studies have reported changes in cow behavior on slatted compared to concrete floors, suggesting that the slats are less comfortable standing and walking surface to cows. Cows have been observed walking slower, and with shorter steps on slatted compared to solid floors (Haufe et al., 2009; Telezhenko and Bergsten, 2005). In the study of Telezhenko and Bergsten (2005) slatted floor was more slippery, with lower friction value, compared to solid concrete floor.

4.2. Cow level risk factors for lameness In this study, Holsteins had 1.6 times higher odds for lameness than Ayrshire cows. The reason for this could be that the Holsteins are on average bigger and heavier than Ayrshire cows, possibly having more weight pressure on claws, and potentially having more problems in fitting the stalls, at least in herds that have a mixture of the two breeds. Moreover, Holsteins have on average higher milk yield than Ayrshire cows, which can be associated with more concentrated feeding. In two recent Finnish studies (Kujala et al., 2009, 2010), Holsteins had higher odds for sole ulcers, white line disease, and hemorrhages in hooves, compared to Ayrshire cows. Holsteins had more claw lesions but remarkably enough, better locomotion scores in a study comparing Holstein–Friesian and Norwegian Red heifers following calving (Baird et al., 2009). Older cows were lame more often than younger cows in the present study. This finding has earlier been reported by other authors (Bicalho et al., 2007; Espejo et al., 2006; Haskell et al., 2006). This result may be explained by the fact that old cows are on average bigger, heavier, and have been exposed to the housing environment for a longer period than young cows, and have reoccurrence of lesions. The stalls in a barn are often adjusted for the majority of the herd (even incorrectly restrictive with neck and front rails), which can lead to problems for the largest cows in a herd; e.g. the stalls are too short and the neck rail is too low, and too close to the rear kerb for them. This can lead to longer standing times on concrete, thus exposing the hooves to the negative influence of manure and hard surface. This reasoning is supported by two studies; Tucker et al. (2005) reported that the time “perching” in the stalls increased linearly with increase in the body length of the cow, and Haskell et al. (2006) reported an interaction between the hip width of the cow and the lunging space of the stalls on the level of lameness. 4.3. Possible sources of bias Despite similar training, there were clear differences in the lameness scoring results between the three veterinarians who did the scoring. Scorer influence was accounted for by having the scorer in the multivariable model as a confounder. Likewise, cows walked on different surfaces during lameness scoring, which was taken into account in analyses. 5. Conclusions The main observations of this study were: the lameness estimate was lower if (a) the feed barrier was separated to feeding places (compared to post-and-rail barrier); (b) the walking alley next to the feeding table was wider ( 4340 cm compared to narrower ones); and (c) the walking alleys were firm or at the most slightly slippery (compared to very slippery). In addition, many barns had hard stalls, supplemented with neck and front rails that were placed improperly, and many barns had problems with manure removal.

K. Sarjokari et al. / Livestock Science 156 (2013) 44–52

It seems that in many herds significant improvements in claw health could be achieved with low cost solutions; especially by correcting the placement of neck and front rails in stalls, by changing to softer mattresses and/or increasing the amount of bedding used in stalls, and by improving the effectiveness of manure removal and urine drainage. If the resources of a farm are very limited, the main focus should be on the environment of cows and heifers during the transition period. There still is a need to convince dairy farmers and housing designers of dairy barns on the factors contributing to claw and leg health and cow comfort, and their influence on herd productivity. Also, better design, quality and durability of flooring and manure removing machinery should be required from builders, manufacturers and retailers of dairy barns and barn equipment. Conflict of interest statement None.

Acknowledgments We warmly thank all the dairy farmers participating in this study for their time and help during farm visits. Many thanks to Siri Siltasalmi,Virpi Ryhänen, Salla Perkkiö, Nina Eloranta, Laura Kulkas and the advisory group of Valio Ltd for help in the field work, and to Janne Karttunen, VeliMatti Tuure and all the researchers of “elke”—project for good teamwork and cooperation. ProAgria Agricultural Data Processing Centre Ltd is thanked for providing herd records, and European Social Fund, Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Upper-Savo municipalities, and Walter Ehrström’s Foundation for funding. References Amory, J.R., Barker, Z.E., Wright, J.L., Mason, S.A., Blowey, R.W., Green, L.E., 2008. Associations between sole ulcer, white line disease and digital dermatitis and the milk yield of 1824 dairy cows on 30 dairy cow farms in England and Wales from February 2003–November 2004. Prev. Vet. Med. 83, 381–391. Anon., 2010. Indretning af stalde til kvæg—Danske anbefalinger, Tværfaglig rapport, 5. udgave 2010. Videncentret for Landbrug, Aarhus, Denmark. Anon., 2012. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural affairs. Dairy —Housing and Environment. Accessed March 21, 2012. 〈http://www. omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/dairy/herd/house/index.html〉. Baird, L.G., O’Connell, N.E., Mccoy, M.A., Keady, T.W.J., Kilpatrick, D.J., 2009. Effects of breed and production system on lameness parameters in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 92, 2174–2182. Bernardi, F., Fregonesi, J., Winckler, C., Veira, D.M., von Keyserlingk, M.A. G., Weary, D.M., 2009. The stall-design paradox: neck rails increase lameness but improve udder and stall hygiene. J. Dairy Sci. 92, 3074–3080. Bewley, J., Palmer, R.W., Jackson-Smith, D.B., 2001. A comparison of freestall barns used by modernized Wisconsin dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 528–541. Bicalho, R.C., Vokey, F., Erb, H.N., Guard, C.L., 2007. Visual locomotion scoring in the first seventy days in milk: impact on pregnancy and survival. J. Dairy Sci. 90, 4586–4591. Calderon, D.F., Cook, N.B., 2011. The effect of lameness on the resting behavior and metabolic status of dairy cattle during the transition period in a freestall-housed dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 94, 2883–2894. Cardot, V., Le Roux, Y., Jurjanz, S., 2008. Drinking behavior of lactating dairy cows and prediction of their water intake. J. Dairy Sci. 91, 2257–2264.

51

Cook, N.B., 2003. Prevalence of lameness among dairy cattle in Wisconsin as a function of housing type and stall surface. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 223, 1324–1328. DeVries, T.J., von Keyserlingk, M.A., 2006. Feed stalls affect the social and feeding behavior of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 89, 3522–3531. Dippel, S., Dolezal, M., Brenninkmeyer, C., Brinkmann, J., March, S., Knierim, U., Winckler, C., 2009. Risk factors for lameness in freestall-housed dairy cows across two breeds, farming systems, and countries. J. Dairy Sci. 92, 5476–5486. Dippel, S., Tucker, C.B., Winckler, C., Weary, D.M., 2011. Effects of behaviour on the development of claw lesions in early lactation dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 134, 16–22. Dohoo, I.R., Martin, W., Stryhn, H., 2009. Veterinary epidemiologic research, second ed. VER Inc., Canada. Endres, M.I., DeVries, T.J., von Keyserlingk, M.A., Weary, D.M., 2005. Short communication: effect of feed barrier design on the behavior of loose-housed lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 88, 2377–2380. Espejo, L.A., Endres, M.I., Salfer, J.A., 2006. Prevalence of lameness in highproducing Holstein cows housed in freestall barns in Minnesota. J. Dairy Sci. 89, 3052–3058. Fjeldaas, T., Sogstad, Å.M., Østerås, O., 2011. Locomotion and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows housed in freestalls with slatted concrete, solid concrete, or solid rubber flooring in the alleys. J. Dairy Sci. 94, 1243–1255. Frankena, K., Somers, J.G., Schouten, W.G., van Stek, J.V., Metz, J.H., Stassen, E.N., Graat, E.A., 2009. The effect of digital lesions and floor type on locomotion score in Dutch dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 88, 150–157. Fregonesi, J.A., Leaver, J.D., 2002. Influence of space allowance and milk yield level on behaviour, performance and health of dairy cows housed in strawyard and cubicle systems. Livest. Prod. Sci. 78, 245–257. Galindo, F., Broom, D.M., 2000. The relationships between social behaviour of dairy cows and the occurrence of lameness in three herds. Res. Vet. Sci. 69, 75–79. Galindo, F., Broom, D.M., Jackson, P.G.G., 2000. A note on possible link between behaviour and the occurrence of lameness in dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 67, 335–341. Green, L.E., Hedges, V.J., Schukken, Y.H., Blowey, R.W., Packington, A.J., 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 2250–2256. Greenough, P.R., 2007. Bovine laminitis and lameness a hands-on approach. Elsevier, Saunders. Gröhn, Y., Thompson, J.R., Bruss, M.L., 1984. Epidemiology and genetic basis of ketosis in Finnish Ayrshire cattle. Prev. Vet. Med., 65–77. Haskell, M.J., Rennie, L.J., Bowell, V.A., Bell, M.J., Lawrence, A.B., 2006. Housing system, milk production, and zero-grazing effects on lameness and leg injury in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 89, 4259–4266. Haufe, H.C., Gygax, L., Steiner, B., Friedli, K., Stauffacher, M., Wechsler, B., 2009. Influence of floor type in the walking area of cubicle housing systems on the behaviour of dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 116, 21–27. Hernandez, J.A., Garbarino, E.J., Shearer, J.K., Risco, C.A., Thatcher, W.W., 2005. Comparison of the calving-to-conception interval in dairy cows with different degrees of lameness during the prebreeding postpartum period. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 227, 1284–1291. Huzzey, J.M., DeVries, T.J., Valois, P., von Keyserlingk, M.A., 2006. Stocking density and feed barrier design affect the feeding and social behavior of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 89, 126–133. Kondo, S., Sekine, J., Okubo, M., Asahida, Y., 1989. The effect of group-size and space allowance on the agonistic and spacing behavior of cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 24, 127–135. Kujala, M., Dohoo, I.R., Laakso, M., Schnier, C., Soveri, T., 2009. Sole ulcers in Finnish dairy cattle. Prev. Vet. Med. 89, 227–236. Kujala, M., Dohoo, I.R., Soveri, T., 2010. White-line disease and haemorrhages in hooves of Finnish dairy cattle. Prev. Vet. Med. 94, 18–27. Kyntäjä, J., Niskanen, S., 2007. Milk production, animal recording, dairy advisory services and cattle breeding in Finland. In: Breeding, Production Recording, Health and the Evaluation of Farm Animals— Eaap 121. Proceedings of the 35th Biennial Session of ICAR, Kuopio, Finland, June 6–10, 2006, pp. 13–16. Laven, R.A., Lawrence, K.E., Weston, J.F., Dowson, K.R., Stafford, K.J., 2008. Assessment of the duration of the pain response associated with lameness in dairy cows, and the influence of treatment. N. Z. Vet. J. 56, 210–217. Leonard, F.C., O’Connell, J.M., O’Farrell, K.J., 1996. Effect of overcrowding on claw health in first-calved Friesian heifers. Br. Vet. J. 152, 459–472. Miller, K., Woodgush, D.G.M., 1991. Some effects of housing on the socialbehavior of dairy-cows. Anim. Prod. 53, 271–278.

52

K. Sarjokari et al. / Livestock Science 156 (2013) 44–52

Murray, R.D., Downham, D.Y., Clarkson, M.J., Faull, W.B., Hughes, J.W., Manson, F.J., Merritt, J.B., Russell, W.B., Sutherst, J.E., Ward, W.R., 1996. Epidemiology of lameness in dairy cattle: description and analysis of foot lesions. Vet. Rec. 138, 586–591. O’Callaghan, K.A., Cripps, P.J., Downham, D.Y., Murray, R.D., 2003. Subjective and objective assessment of pain and discomfort due to lameness in dairy cattle. Anim. Welfare 12, 605–610. Olofsson, J., 1999. Competition for total mixed diets fed for ad libitum intake using one or four cows per feeding station. J. Dairy Sci. 82, 69–79. Olsson, S.O., Baekbo, P., Hansson, S.O., Rautala, H., Osteras, O., 2001. Disease recording systems and herd health schemes for production diseases. Acta Vet. Scand. Suppl. 94, 51–60. Rajala-Schultz, P.J., Gröhn, Y.T., 1999. Culling of dairy cows. Part I. Effects of diseases on culling in Finnish Ayrshire cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 41, 195–208. Rouha-Mulleder, C., Iben, C., Wagner, E., Laaha, G., Troxler, J., Waiblinger, S., 2009. Relative importance of factors influencing the prevalence of lameness in Austrian cubicle loose-housed dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 92, 123–133. Rutherford, K.M.D., Langford, F.M., Jack, M.C., Sherwood, L., Lawrence, A. B., Haskell, M.J., 2009. Lameness prevalence and risk factors in organic and non-organic dairy herds in the United Kingdom. Vet. J. 180, 95–105. Sanders, A.H., Shearer, J.K., De Vries, A., 2009. Seasonal incidence of lameness and risk factors associated with thin soles, white line disease, ulcers, and sole punctures in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 92, 3165–3174. Sogstad, A.M., Fjeldaas, T., Osteras, O., 2005. Lameness and claw lesions of the Norwegian red dairy cattle housed in free stalls in relation to environment, parity and stage of lactation. Acta Vet. Scand. 46, 203–217. Somers, J.G., Frankena, K., Noordhuizen-Stassen, E.N., Metz, J.H., 2003. Prevalence of claw disorders in Dutch dairy cows exposed to several floor systems. J. Dairy Sci. 86, 2082–2093. Somers, J.G., Schouten, W.G., Frankena, K., Noordhuizen-Stassen, E.N., Metz, J.H., 2005. Development of claw traits and claw lesions in dairy cows kept on different floor systems. J. Dairy Sci. 88, 110–120.

Sprecher, D.J., Hostetler, D.E., Kaneene, J.B., 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47, 1179–1187. Tarlton, J.F., 2002. Biomechanical and histopathological changes in the support structures of bovine hooves around the time of first calving. Vet. J. 163, 196. Telezhenko, E., Bergsten, C., 2005. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 93, 183–197. Thomsen, P.T., Sorensen, J.T., 2009. Factors affecting the risk of euthanasia for cows in Danish dairy herds. Vet. Rec. 165, 43–45. Tucker, C.B., Weary, D.M., 2004. Bedding on geotextile mattresses: how much is needed to improve cow comfort? J. Dairy Sci. 87, 2889–2895. Tucker, C.B., Weary, D.M., Fraser, D., 2003. Effects of three types of freestall surfaces on preferences and stall usage by dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 86, 521–529. Tucker, C.B., Weary, D.M., Fraser, D., 2005. Influence of neck-rail placement on free-stall preference, use, and cleanliness. J. Dairy Sci. 88, 2730–2737. Walker, S.L.S., 2010. The effect of a chronic stressor, lameness, on detailed sexual behaviour and hormonal profiles in milk and plasma of dairy cattle. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 45, 109–117. Walker, S.L., Smith, R.F., Routly, J.E., Jones, D.N., Morris, M.J., Dobson, H., 2008. Lameness, activity time-budgets, and estrus expression in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 91, 4552–4559. Weary, D.M., Taszkun, I., 2000. Hock lesions and free-stall design. J. Dairy Sci. 83, 697–702. Whay, H.R., Main, D.C., Green, L.E., Webster, A.J., 2003. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. Rec. 153, 197–202. Whay, H.R., Waterman, A.E., Webster, A.J., 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. Vet. J. 154, 155–161. Whay, H.R., Waterman, A.E., Webster, A.J., O’Brien, J.K., 1998. The influence of lesion type on the duration of hyperalgesia associated with hindlimb lameness in dairy cattle. Vet. J. 156, 23–29.