Equine orthopedic pain scales are targeted towards horses with moderate to severe orthopedic pain. Improved assessment of pain behavior and pain-related facial expressions at rest may refine orthopedic pain detection for mild lameness grades. Therefore, this study explored pain-related behaviors and facial expressions and sought to identify frequently occurring combinations. Orthopedic pain was induced by intra-articular LPS in eight horses, and objective movement asymmetry analyses were performed before and after induction together with pain assessments at rest. Three observers independently assessed horses in their box stalls, using four equine pain scales simultaneously. Increase in movement asymmetry after induction was used as a proxy for pain. Behaviors and facial expressions commonly co-occurred and were strongly associated with movement asymmetry. Posture-related scale items were the strongest predictors of movement asymmetry. Display of facial expressions at rest varied between horses but, when present, were strongly associated with movement asymmetry. Reliability of facial expression items was lower than reliability of behavioral items. These findings suggest that five body behaviors (posture, head position, location in the box stall, focus, and interactive behavior) should be included in a scale for live assessment of mild orthopedic pain. We also recommend inclusion of facial expressions in pain assessment.

ObjectiveThis study investigated the relationship between orthopedic pain experienced at rest, and degree of movement asymmetry during trot in horses with induced reversible acute arthritis. Orthopedic pain was assessed with the Horse Grimace Scale (HGS), the Equine Utrecht University Scale of Facial Assessment of Pain (EQUUS-FAP), the Equine Pain Scale (EPS), and the Composite Orthopedic Pain Scale (CPS). Reliability and diagnostic accuracy were evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and area under the curve (AUC).Study design and animalsEight healthy horses were included in this experimental study, with each horse acting as its own control.MethodsOrthopedic pain was induced by intra-articular lipopolysaccharide (LPS) administration. Serial pain assessments were performed before induction and during pain progression and regression, where three observers independently and simultaneously assessed pain at rest with the four scales. Movement asymmetry was measured once before induction and a minimum of four times after induction, using objective gait analysis.ResultsOn average 6.6 (standard deviation 1.2) objective gait analyses and 12.1 (2.4) pain assessments were performed per horse. The ICC for each scale was 0.75 (CPS), 0.65 (EPS), 0.52 (HGS), and 0.43 (EQUUS-FAP). Total pain scores of all scales were significantly associated with an increase in movement asymmetry (R2 values ranging from −0.0649 to 0.493); with CPS pain scores being most closely associated with movement asymmetry. AUC varied between scales and observers, and CPS was the only scale where all observers had a good diagnostic accuracy (AUC > 0.72).Conclusions and clinical relevanceThis study identified significant associations between pain experienced at rest and degree of movement asymmetry for all scales. Pain scores obtained using CPS were most closely associated with movement asymmetry. CPS was also the most accurate and reliable pain scale. All scales had varying linear and non-linear relations between total pain scores and movement asymmetry, illustrating challenges with orthopedic pain assessment during rest in subtly lame horses since movement asymmetry needs to be rather high before total pain score increase.

The COST action “Standardising output-based surveillance to control non-regulated diseases of cattle in the European Union (SOUND control),” aims to harmonise the results of surveillance and control programmes (CPs) for non-EU regulated cattle diseases to facilitate safe trade and improve overall control of cattle infectious diseases. In this paper we aimed to provide an overview on the diversity of control for these diseases in Europe. A non-EU regulated cattle disease was defined as an infectious disease of cattle with no or limited control at EU level, which is not included in the European Union Animal health law Categories A or B under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2002. A CP was defined as surveillance and/or intervention strategies designed to lower the incidence, prevalence, mortality or prove freedom from a specific disease in a region or country. Passive surveillance, and active surveillance of breeding bulls under Council Directive 88/407/EEC were not considered as CPs. A questionnaire was designed to obtain country-specific information about CPs for each disease. Animal health experts from 33 European countries completed the questionnaire. Overall, there are 23 diseases for which a CP exists in one or more of the countries studied. The diseases for which CPs exist in the highest number of countries are enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bovine viral diarrhoea and anthrax (CPs reported by between 16 and 31 countries). Every participating country has on average, 6 CPs (min–max: 1–13) in place. Most programmes are implemented at a national level (86%) and are applied to both dairy and non-dairy cattle (75%). Approximately one-third of the CPs are voluntary, and the funding structure is divided between government and private resources. Countries that have eradicated diseases like enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhoea have implemented CPs for other diseases to further improve the health status of cattle in their country. The control of non-EU regulated cattle diseases is very heterogenous in Europe. Therefore, the standardising of the outputs of these programmes to enable comparison represents a challenge.

The emergence and spread of antibiotic resistance is a growing global threat and has aroused a global interest in limiting antibiotic use in animal agriculture. As we are entering the post-antibiotic era, there is a growing need for identifying alternatives to antibiotics for prevention and treatment. Although phytotherapeutic remedies are available and are used in Europe, evidence of their efficacy is currently very limited but is nevertheless still necessary. A systematic review of phytotherapy used for the treatment and prevention of infectious diseases in farm animals has been conducted using the PICOS approach. Analysis and extraction of information from studies was performed according to a protocol, and included: publication year and source, research body, species, farming system, purpose of application, disease in focus, diagnostic method, remedy used (origin and ingredients of the remedy), producer of remedy, way of administration, study design, and control groups, measure of effect, and outcome of the study. A total of 1,705 papers were screened, but only 44 (comprising 53 independent studies) met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the scientific studies identified show limitations in the study design as well as in presentation and standardization of the botanical remedies studied, which limits the possibilities of drawing firm conclusions. Preventive effect was investigated in 89% of the studies. Half of the studies reported uncertain effects of the botanical remedies on subclinical measures in comparison to a control group. The review highlights unresolved questions such as the need for standardized controlled trials and for improved standardization of the botanical products by analytical methods, such as high-performance liquid chromatography. It is necessary to consider this in order to achieve replicable outcomes and establish efficacy and safety of phytotherapy in farm practice. The manageability of alternative medicine in farm animals also warrants further investigation so as to ascertain whether all necessary preconditions for their use are being granted.

Ulf Emanuelson. (2019) Risk factors and dynamics of verotoxigenic Escherichia coli O157:H7 on cattle farms: An observational study combining information from questionnaires, spatial data and molecular analyses.

Some European countries have successfully implemented country-specific control programs (CPs) for infectious cattle diseases that are not regulated or are regulated only to a limited extent at the European Union (EU) level. Examples of such diseases include bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), and Johne's disease (JD). The CPs vary between countries in the design and quality of collected data as well as methods used to detect infection and estimate prevalence or probability of freedom from infection. Differences in disease status between countries and non-standardized approaches to assess freedom from infection pose a risk for countries with CPs for non-regulated diseases as infected animals may influence the progress of the disease control or eradication program. The implementation of output-based standards allows estimation and comparison of the probability of freedom for non-regulated cattle diseases in European countries. The aim of the current study was to assess the existence and quality of data that could be used for estimating freedom from infection in European countries. The online data collection tool was sent to 32 countries participating in the SOUND control COST Action and was completed by 24 countries. Data on cattle demographics and data from CPs of IBR and BVD exist in more than 50% of the response countries. However, data describing risk factors and CP of JD was reported as existing in <25% of the countries. The overall quality of data in the sections on demographics and CPs of IBR and BVD were evaluated as “good”, but risk factors and JD data were mostly evaluated as “fair.” Data quality was considered less good mainly due to two quality criteria: accessibility and accuracy. The results of this study show that the quantity and quality of data about cattle populations and CPs are relatively similar in many surveyed countries. The outcome of this work provides an overview of the current situation in the European countries regarding data on EU non-regulated cattle diseases and will further assist in the development and implementation of output-based standards.

Aims: Cattle are the second most important cause of human campylobacteriosis, after poultry, but there are knowledge gaps regarding Campylobacter in cattle. This study examined the occurrence of Campylobacter, the species present, sequence types and antibiotic resistance in Swedish cattle. Methods and Results: Faeces samples collected from 154 calves on seven Swedish farms, and 69 follow-up samples from a second collection occasion, were analysed. Campylobacter were isolated from 77% of calves at the first sampling, with Campylobacter jejuni as the most frequently isolated species. Animals kept on deep straw bedding were less likely to be colonized with Campylobacter. Whole-genome sequencing of 90 C. jejuni samples resulted in 11 sequence types, among which ST-19 and ST-21 were most frequent. Antimicrobial resistance analyses showed that 46% of 142 isolates analysed were resistant to quinolones, while all isolates belonging to ST-19, ST-22 and ST-441 were resistant to ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid. Conclusions: Campylobacter jejuni was the species most frequently isolated in calves and a strong association was found between sequence type and antimicrobial resistance pattern. Significance and Impact of the Study: The high proportion of calves with quinolone-resistant Campylobacter jejuni should be considered in a One Health perspective.

This study reflects on the recognised need for more joined-up, high-quality research on phytotherapy that addresses the current societal challenges in finding alternatives to the use of antibiotics. The study applied a multidisciplinary participatory approach in an expert workshop exercise within the FP7 EU IMPRO project. Prior to this study, a literature review was elaborated on research in the field of phytotherapy as applied to farm animals, cooperation between research bodies and initiatives to reduce the use of antibiotics by using phytotherapeutic remedies. The review was delivered to the participants of the workshop so as to receive feedback on it and enrich the discussion. Different expertise, background in research or veterinary practice, and varying positions regarding phytotherapy were the criteria in targeting participants. A structured workshop was subsequently organised, with questions to experts addressing scientific validation of phytotherapy, effective treatment under farm conditions and necessary developments for the future. Challenges identified by the experts were as follows: poor study designs, lack of reproducibility of studies, poor standardisation of products, cost–benefit concerns, lack of veterinarian training and poor data availability. To overcome obstacles, the need for improved study designs for clinical trials was given priority in order to prove the efficacy of remedies and to implement a monitoring system which enables the assessment of the effectiveness of treatments in farm practice. Reflections in this report are intended to be a resource for scientists, policy makers and end users for an effective use of phytotherapy at farm level.