Digital dermatitis is an infectious disease that causes lameness in dairy cattle, a primary welfare concern of the dairy industry. One of the common treatments for this painful hoof disease is through the application of an antibiotic bandage that must be removed following treatment. The objectives of this randomized clinical trial were to determine if topical application of tetracycline hydrochloride in a paste would be as therapeutically effective for the treatment of digital dermatitis as a powdered form of tetracycline hydrochloride held in place by a bandage, and to quantify pain associated with digital dermatitis lesions. Two hundred and fourteen Holstein cow hooves with digital dermatitis lesions were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatments: a tetracycline hydrochloride paste, tetracycline hydrochloride powder held in place with a bandage for 2 d, or a negative (untreated) control. Lesions were examined at 2 time periods: 3 to 7 d posttreatment and 8 to 12 d posttreatment to determine healing rates. Nociceptive thresholds were measured using a pressure algometer to quantify the pain at the lesion site. The tetracycline hydrochloride paste was as effective as the powdered bandage treatment in terms of healing rates, with 47.4 and 57.1% hooves healed at 8 to 12 d posttreatment, respectively. Both treatments were more effective than the control, in which no lesions healed 8 to 12 d following initial examination. Mean (±SE) nociceptive thresholds for active, healing, and healed lesions differed, with limb-withdrawal response occurring at 7.45 (±0.67) kg, 12.84 (±1.85) kg, and censored to 25 kg (maximum value of algometer) of force applied, respectively. However, active lesions were not consistently associated with pain, as maximum force was tolerated when applied to 19% of active lesions, perhaps due to variability in stoicism between individual cattle or due to changes in pain during the progression of infection. In conclusion, tetracycline hydrochloride paste was as effective as tetracycline hydrochloride bandage, eliminating the need for bandage removal following treatment application. Digital lesions can be painful during both active and healing stages, suggesting the need for treatment and husbandry interventions for pain mitigation.

We compared 2 methods for identifying lame cows and estimating the prevalence of lameness in tiestalls. Cows (n=320) in 9 tiestall herds were scored as lame both by the presence of limping while walking and by stall lameness scores (SLS). The SLS was based on the number of the following behaviors that the cow showed while standing in the tiestall: weight shifting, standing on the edge of the stall, uneven weight bearing while standing, and uneven weight bearing while moving from side to side. Two observers watched video-recordings of the cows. Intraobserver agreements for the 4 SLS behaviors ranged from 92 to 100%, and interobserver agreement ranged from 81 to 100%. The overall prevalence of lameness based on an SLS of ≥2 was similar to that of limping (39 vs. 40%). The sensitivity of the classification based on the SLS was 0.63 and the specificity was 0.77 in identifying cows with a limp; accuracy varied across farms from 62.2 to 80.4%, with a mean of 71.7%. A cow with an SLS of ≥2 had 4.88 times the odds of limping than a cow with an SLS of <2. The prevalence of lameness on farms based on SLS was highly correlated with the prevalence of limping (Pearson correlation=0.88; n=9), and prevalence estimates from the 2 methods diverged most when the mean herd prevalence was lower. The SLS method provides an estimate of the prevalence of lameness in tiestall herds comparable with traditional gait scoring, but does not require that the cows be untied. The SLS method could be used to improve lameness detection on tiestall farms and obtain estimates of lameness prevalence without the need to walk the cows.

Lameness is one of the most important welfare and productivity concerns in the dairy industry. Our objectives were to obtain producers' estimates of its prevalence and their perceptions of lameness, and to investigate how producers monitor lameness in tiestall (TS), freestall with milking parlor (FS), and automated milking system (AMS) herds. Forty focal cows per farm in 237 Canadian dairy herds were scored for lameness by trained researchers. On the same day, the producers completed a questionnaire. Mean herd-level prevalence of lameness estimated by producers was 9.0% (±0.9%; ±SE), whereas the researchers observed a mean prevalence of 22.2% (±0.9%). Correlation between producer- and researcher-estimated lameness prevalence was low (r = 0.19) and mean researcher prevalence was 1.6, 1.8, and 4.1 times higher in AMS, FS, and TS farms, respectively. A total of 48% of producers thought lameness was a moderate or major problem in their herds (TS = 34%; AMS =53%; FS = 59%). One third of producers considered lameness the highest ranked health problem they were trying to control, whereas two-thirds of producers (TS = 43%; AMS = 63%; FS = 71%) stated that they had made management changes to deal with lameness in the past 2 yr. Almost all producers (98%) stated they routinely check cows to identify new cases of lameness; however, 40% of producers did not keep records of lameness (AMS = 24%; FS = 23%; TS = 60%). A majority (69%) of producers treated lame cows themselves immediately after detection, whereas 13% relied on hoof-trimmer or veterinarians to plan treatment. Producers are aware of lameness as an issue in dairy herds and almost all monitor lameness as part of their daily routine. However, producers underestimate lameness prevalence, which highlights that lameness detection continues to be difficult in in all housing systems, especially in TS herds. Training to improve detection, record keeping, identification of farm-specific risk factors, and treatment planning for lame cows is likely to help decrease lameness prevalence.

Therapeutic hoof blocks have been recommended for treatment of sole ulcers in dairy cattle; however, they are underutilized in the industry. Twenty Holstein cows were randomly assigned to receive a wooden hoof block applied to the left hind leg (n = 5), to the right hind leg (n = 5), or no hoof blocks (n = 10). Accelerometers were affixed to both hind legs of 10 blocked cows and 5 control cows. Cows were observed for locomotion scores, and milk production was recorded. Mixed models were constructed to determine effects of block application on behavior, milk production, and locomotion. Activity was altered by day, with cows being most active on Day - 1. The mean number of daily lying bouts and lying bout duration did not differ by treatment. Locomotion scores were higher for blocked cows on Days 1, 2, and 3 compared with baseline; however, milk production did not differ between treatments. In conclusion, although block application affected the appearance of locomotion, it did not appear to adversely affect the behavior or milk production of sound dairy cows.