Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35672794›Full record

ArticleIrish veterinary journal2022

Lameness prevalence and management practices on Irish pasture-based dairy farms.

N Browne, C D Hudson, R E Crossley, K Sugrue, E Kennedy, J N Huxley, M Conneely

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Irish veterinary journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

N BrowneTeagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland. natasha.browne@hotmail.co.uk.
C D HudsonSchool of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Loughborough, UK.
R E CrossleyTeagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.
K SugrueTeagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.
E KennedyTeagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.
J N HuxleyMassey University, School of Veterinary Science, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
M ConneelyTeagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.
Teagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority · IEMassey University · NZUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLameness is a painful disease, which negatively impacts dairy cow production and welfare. The aim of this observational study was to determine herd lameness prevalence, describe current lameness management practices and identify the presence of established risk factors for lameness on Irish pasture-based dairy farms. Farms were visited once during grazing (99 farms) and again during housing (85 farms). Lameness scoring was carried out at each visit (AHDB 0-3 scale); cows were classified as lame if they scored two or three. Farm management practices and infrastructure characteristics were evaluated via farmer questionnaires and direct measurements of farm infrastructure.

resultsMedian herd-level lameness prevalence was 7.9% (interquartile range = 5.6 - 13.0) during grazing and 9.1% (interquartile range = 4.9 - 12.0) during housing; 10.9% of cows were lame at a single visit and 3.5% were lame at both visits (chronically lame or had a repeat episode of lameness). Fifty-seven percent of farmers were not familiar with lameness scoring and only one farm carried out lameness scoring. Only 22% of farmers kept records of lame cows detected, and 15% had a lameness herd health plan. Twenty-eight percent of farmers waited more than 48 h to treat a lame cow, and 21% waited for more than one cow to be identified as lame before treating. Six percent of farmers carried out routine trimming and 31% regularly footbathed (> 12 times per year). Twelve percent put severely lame cows in a closer paddock and 8% stated that they used pain relief to treat severely lame cows. Over 50% of farms had at least one cow track measurement that was classified as rough or very rough, and cow tracks were commonly narrow for the herd size. On 6% of farms, all cubicle beds were bare concrete (no matting or bedding) and on a further 6% of farms, there was a combination of cubicles with and without matting or bedding. On 56% of farms, all pens contained less than 1.1 cubicles per cow and on 28% of farms, a proportion of pens contained less than 1.1 cubicles per cow.

conclusionsOverall, this study identified infrastructure and management practices which could be improved upon. The comparatively low lameness prevalence demonstrated, compared to fully housed systems, also highlights the benefits of a pasture-based system for animal welfare; however, there remains scope for improvement.

Indexed as

Dairy cowInfrastructureLamenessManagementWelfare

Identifiers

PMID35672794
PMCPMC9175467
OpenAlexW4281904934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.