Mortality (including euthanasia) among Danish dairy cows (1990–2001)

Thomsen, Peter T.; Kjeldsen, Anne Mette; Sørensen, Jan Tind; Houe, Hans

doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2003.09.002

Cited by 96 publications

(118 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Higher mortality among older cows can be explained by an increased risk of calving and production-related diseases cumulating with each parity (e.g. milk fever, displaced abomasum, downer cow syndrome, mastitis, uterine prolapse retained placenta and ketosis) (Thomsen et al, 2004;Shahid et al, 2015).…”

Section: On-farm Mortality Of Cattle In Estonian Dairy Herdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mortality of dairy cows has been reported in the range of 3.5 to 6.1% in previous studies conducted in different countries (Thomsen et al, 2004;McConnel et al, 2008;Raboisson et al, 2011;Alvåsen et al, 2014), mortality of youngstock has been reported from 2.4 to 9.4% (Losinger and Heinrichs, 1997;Gulliksen et al, 2009;Bleul, 2011;Azizzadeh et al, 2012, Santman-Berends et al, 2014. Previous studies have identified several animal level risk factors associated with dairy cow mortality hazard, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Still, in the last decade, some countries are developing surveillance systems using national registry mortality data for the detection of early disease outbreaks (Struchen et al, 2015;Torres et al, 2015;Santman-Berends et al, 2016). There is no normal level for on-farm mortality in cattle herds, but increasing trend of mortality in dairy herds has been reported in several studies (Thomsen et al, 2004;McConnel et al, 2008;Raboisson et al, 2011;Alvåsen et al, 2012;Alvåsen et al, 2014). Increasing on-farm mortality causes concerns about dairy cattle welfare.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reasons and risk factors for on-farm mortality in Estonian dairy herds

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mortality of dairy cattle causes financial loss for the farmer and reflects animal welfare status. The aim of this study was to determine the on-farm mortality (unassisted death and euthanasia), reasons, as well as risk factors for on-farm mortality in Estonian dairy cattle. Data of years 2013 and 2014 about all cattle from dairy herds in Estonia was collected from the Estonian Agricultural Registers and Information Board. The dataset included records of 363,380 animals from 2,616 herds. Multivariable Weibull proportional hazard models with herd as random effect were composed for detecting significant associations between potential risk factors and on-farm mortality (composed outcome including unassisted death and euthanasia). Data from Estonian Livestock Performance Recording Ltd was used to determine the reasons for on-farm mortality.The overall mortality rate (MR) including unassisted death and euthanasia was 6.95 per 100 animal-years. Mortality was highest in male (MR = 55.96 per 100 animal-years, 95% CI 54.53; 57.42) and female (MR = 27.70 per 100 animal-years, 95% CI 26.99; 28.43) calves up to three months old and lowest in female cattle aged 12-18 months (MR = 0.99 per 100 animal-years, 95% CI 0.89; 1.10). The main farmers´ stated reasons for dairy cow mortality were 'Metabolic and digestive disorders' and 'Feet/claw disorders'. The main reasons for on-farm mortality among youngstock were 'Metabolic and digestive disorders', 'Respiratory and infectious diseases' and 'Other reasons'. The risk factor analysis was carried out in three age categories: <3 months, 3-23 months and ≥24 months. Estonian Holstein breed was associated with significantly higher risk of mortality compared to Estonian Red breed cattle in every age group. The hazard of on-farm mortality was significantly higher for herds with over 400 animal-years compared to smaller herds in all age groups. Regional differences in mortality hazard were present in the model of youngstock over 3 months and adult cattle. Seasonal differences in mortality rate were present and differed by age groups. This is the first study revealing the on-farm mortality and related risk factors in Estonian dairy cattle population.

show abstract

Section: On-farm Mortality Of Cattle In Estonian Dairy Herdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reasons and risk factors for on-farm mortality in Estonian dairy herds

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lameness is a major health and welfare problem in modern dairy herds (Bruijnis et al, 2012), which negatively affects oestrus expression (Walker et al, 2008), fertility (Bicalho et al, 2007), feeding and rumination (Almeida et al, 2008), milk production (Kamphuis et al, 2013), lying behaviour (Ito et al, 2010;Thomsen et al, 2012) and cow longevity (Thomsen et al, 2004). The mean prevalence of lameness can be high, for example it was 37% in the United Kingdom , 44% in Denmark (Burow et al, 2014) and between 28% and 55% in regions in North America (von Keyserlingk et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lameness detection via leg-mounted accelerometers on dairy cows on four commercial farms

Thorup

Munksgaard

Robert

et al. 2015

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lameness in dairy herds is traditionally detected by visual inspection, which is time-consuming and subjective. Compared with healthy cows, lame cows often spend longer time lying down, walk less and change behaviour around feeding time.Accelerometers measuring cow leg activity may assist farmers in detecting lame cows. On four commercial farms, accelerometer data were derived from hind leg-mounted accelerometers on 348 Holstein cows, 53 of them during two lactations. The cows were milked twice daily and had no access to pasture. During a lactation, locomotion score (LS) was assessed on average 2.4 times (s.d. 1.3). Based on daily lying duration, standing duration, walking duration, total number of steps, step frequency, motion index (MI, i.e. total acceleration) for lying, standing and walking, eight accelerometer means and their corresponding coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated for each week immediately before an LS. A principal component analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between the variables. The effects of LS and farm on the principal components (PC) and on the variables were analysed in a mixed model. The first four PC accounted for 27%, 18%, 12% and 10% of the total variation, respectively. PC1 corresponded to Activity variability due to heavy loading by five CV variables related to standing and walking. PC2 corresponded to Activity level due to heavy loading by MI walking, MI standing and walking duration. PC3 corresponded to Recumbency due to heavy loading by four variables related to lying. PC4 corresponded mainly to Stepping due to heavy loading by step frequency. Activity variability at LS4 was significantly higher than at the lower LS levels. Activity level was significantly higher at LS1 than at LS2, which was significantly higher than at LS4. Recumbency was unaffected by LS. Stepping at LS1 and LS2 was significantly higher than at LS3 and LS4. Activity level was significantly lower on farm 3 compared with farms 1 and 2. Stepping was significantly lower on farms 1 and 3 compared with farms 2 and 4. MI standing indicated increased restlessness while standing when cows increased from LS3 to LS4. Lying duration was only increased in lame cows. In conclusion, Activity level differed already between LS1 and LS2, thus detecting early signs of lameness, particularly through contributions from walking duration and MI walking. Lameness detection models including walking duration, MI walking and MI standing seem worthy of further investigation.

show abstract

“…Results might have been different, if the outcome definition had been based upon animal-based measures instead. Previous risk factor studies have only investigated single components of animal welfare like animal-based measures, for example, lameness prevalence (Alban et al, 1996;Green et al, 2002;Haskell et al, 2006;Dippel et al, 2009), hock lesions (Rutherford et al, 2008;Kielland et al, 2009) or mortality (Thomsen et al, 2004;Alvåsen et al, 2012). Although other studies have evaluated register data performance in predicting herd animal welfare, there have been major differences in the case definition of animal welfare.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Register-based predictors of violations of animal welfare legislation in dairy herds

Otten

Nielsen

Thomsen

et al. 2014

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The assessment of animal welfare can include resource-based or animal-based measures. Official animal welfare inspections in Denmark primarily control compliance with animal welfare legislation based on resource measures (e.g. housing system) and usually do not regard animal response parameters (e.g. clinical and behavioural observations). Herds selected for welfare inspections are sampled by a risk-based strategy based on existing register data. The aim of the present study was to evaluate register data variables as predictors of dairy herds with violations of the animal welfare legislation (VoAWL) defined as occurrence of at least one of the two most frequently violated measures found at recent inspections in Denmark, namely (a) presence of injured animals not separated from the rest of the group and/or (b) animals in a condition warranting euthanasia still being present in the herd. A total of 25 variables were extracted from the Danish Cattle Database and assessed as predictors using a multivariable logistic analysis of a data set including 73 Danish dairy herds, which all had more than 100 cows and cubicle loosehousing systems. Univariable screening was used to identify variables associated with VoAWL at a P-value < 0.2 for the inclusion in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Backward selection procedures identified the following variables for the final model predictive of VoAWL: increasing standard deviation of milk yield for first lactation cows, high bulk tank somatic cell count (⩾250 000 cells/ml) and suspiciously low number of recorded veterinary treatments (⩽25 treatments/100 cow years). The identified predictors may be explained by underlying management factors leading to impaired animal welfare in the herd, such as poor hygiene, feeding and management of dry or calving cows and sick animals. However, further investigations are required for causal inferences to be established.

show abstract

Mortality (including euthanasia) among Danish dairy cows (1990–2001)

Cited by 96 publications

References 15 publications

Reasons and risk factors for on-farm mortality in Estonian dairy herds

Reasons and risk factors for on-farm mortality in Estonian dairy herds

Lameness detection via leg-mounted accelerometers on dairy cows on four commercial farms

Register-based predictors of violations of animal welfare legislation in dairy herds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About