{"title":"Persistence of orthopaedic hoof blocks for the treatment of lame cattle kept permanently at pasture.","authors":"K R Müller, R A Laven, L J Laven","doi":"10.1080/00480169.2023.2216658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To compare the retention by New Zealand dairy cows kept at pasture in a lame cow group, of three hoof block products commonly used in the remediation of lameness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-seven farmer-presented Friesian and Friesian x Jersey dairy cows from a single herd in the Manawatū region (New Zealand) suffering from unilateral hind limb lameness attributable to a claw horn lesion (CHL) were randomly allocated to one of three treatments: foam block (FB), plastic shoe (PS) and a standard wooden block (WB). Blocks were applied to the contralateral healthy claw and checked daily by the farm staff (present/not present) and date of loss was recorded. Blocks were reassessed on Day 14 and Day 28 and then removed unless further elevation was indicated. Daily walking distances were calculated using a farm map and measurement software. Statistical analyses included a linear marginal model for distance walked until block loss and a Cox regression model for the relative hazard of a block being lost.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Random allocation meant that differences between products in proportion used on left or right hind foot or lateral or medial claw were small. Mean distance walked/cow/day on farm tracks whilst the block was present was 0.32 (min 0.12, max 0.45) km/day; no biologically important difference between products in the mean distance walked was identified. Compared to PS, cows in the WB group were five times more likely to lose the block (HR = 4.8 (95% CI = 1.8-12.4)), while cows in the FB group were 9.5 times more likely to lose the block (HR = 9.5 (95% CI = 3.6-24.4)).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, PS were retained for much longer than either FB or WB. As cows were managed in a lame cow group for the study duration, walking distances were low and did not impact on the risk of block loss. More data are needed to define ideal block retention time.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>In cows with CHL the choice of block could be based on the type of lesion present and the expected re-epithelisation times.</p>","PeriodicalId":19322,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand veterinary journal","volume":"71 5","pages":"236-243"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Zealand veterinary journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2023.2216658","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: To compare the retention by New Zealand dairy cows kept at pasture in a lame cow group, of three hoof block products commonly used in the remediation of lameness.
Methods: Sixty-seven farmer-presented Friesian and Friesian x Jersey dairy cows from a single herd in the Manawatū region (New Zealand) suffering from unilateral hind limb lameness attributable to a claw horn lesion (CHL) were randomly allocated to one of three treatments: foam block (FB), plastic shoe (PS) and a standard wooden block (WB). Blocks were applied to the contralateral healthy claw and checked daily by the farm staff (present/not present) and date of loss was recorded. Blocks were reassessed on Day 14 and Day 28 and then removed unless further elevation was indicated. Daily walking distances were calculated using a farm map and measurement software. Statistical analyses included a linear marginal model for distance walked until block loss and a Cox regression model for the relative hazard of a block being lost.
Results: Random allocation meant that differences between products in proportion used on left or right hind foot or lateral or medial claw were small. Mean distance walked/cow/day on farm tracks whilst the block was present was 0.32 (min 0.12, max 0.45) km/day; no biologically important difference between products in the mean distance walked was identified. Compared to PS, cows in the WB group were five times more likely to lose the block (HR = 4.8 (95% CI = 1.8-12.4)), while cows in the FB group were 9.5 times more likely to lose the block (HR = 9.5 (95% CI = 3.6-24.4)).
Conclusions: In this study, PS were retained for much longer than either FB or WB. As cows were managed in a lame cow group for the study duration, walking distances were low and did not impact on the risk of block loss. More data are needed to define ideal block retention time.
Clinical relevance: In cows with CHL the choice of block could be based on the type of lesion present and the expected re-epithelisation times.
期刊介绍：
The New Zealand Veterinary Journal (NZVJ) is an international journal publishing high quality peer-reviewed articles covering all aspects of veterinary science, including clinical practice, animal welfare and animal health.
The NZVJ publishes original research findings, clinical communications (including novel case reports and case series), rapid communications, correspondence and review articles, originating from New Zealand and internationally.
Topics should be relevant to, but not limited to, New Zealand veterinary and animal science communities, and include the disciplines of infectious disease, medicine, surgery and the health, management and welfare of production and companion animals, horses and New Zealand wildlife.
All submissions are expected to meet the highest ethical and welfare standards, as detailed in the Journal’s instructions for authors.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
