{"title":"用于治疗长期放牧的跛牛的矫形蹄块的持久性。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
目的:比较新西兰奶牛在牧场饲养的跛足奶牛组中，三种常用的跛足修复蹄块产品的保留情况。方法:选取新西兰马纳瓦特地区一个牧群中67头因爪角病变(CHL)导致单侧后肢跛行的弗里斯奶牛和弗里斯×泽西奶牛，随机分为泡沫块(FB)、塑料鞋(PS)和标准木块(WB)三种处理之一。对侧健康爪涂块，由农场工作人员(在场/不在场)每天检查，并记录丢失日期。在第14天和第28天重新评估阻滞，然后移除，除非有进一步升高的迹象。使用农场地图和测量软件计算每日步行距离。统计分析包括步行距离的线性边际模型和丢失街区的相对危险度的Cox回归模型。结果:随机分配意味着产品在左右后脚或外侧或内侧爪上使用的比例差异很小。当街区存在时，在农场轨道上行走/头牛/天的平均距离为0.32 km/天(最小0.12，最大0.45);在平均步行距离上，产品之间没有生物学上的重要差异。与PS相比，WB组奶牛失去块的可能性是PS组的5倍(HR = 4.8 (95% CI = 1.8-12.4))，而FB组奶牛失去块的可能性是PS组的9.5倍(HR = 9.5 (95% CI = 3.6-24.4))。结论:在本研究中，PS的保留时间远长于FB和WB。由于在研究期间，奶牛被饲养在跛牛组中，因此步行距离较低，对阻滞损失的风险没有影响。需要更多的数据来定义理想的块保留时间。临床相关性:在CHL奶牛中，阻滞的选择可以基于病变类型和预期的再上皮时间。
Persistence of orthopaedic hoof blocks for the treatment of lame cattle kept permanently at pasture.
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
