Prevalence of claw lesions in Norwegian dairy cattle housed in tie stalls and free stalls

Sogstad, Å.M.; Fjeldaas, T.; Østerås, Olav; Forshell, K. Plym

doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.03.005

Cited by 120 publications

(135 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most lesions were mild (score 1). The prevalence of moderate and severe (score 2 + 3) did not exceed 5% for any of the lesions (Sogstad et al, 2005a).…”

Section: Study Populationmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Definitions in Table 1 are adapted from Bergsten (2000). The cluster effect for claw trimmer was significant only for heelhorn erosions (Sogstad et al, 2005a).…”

Section: Recording Of Datamentioning

confidence: 87%

“…The total number of herds with ≥ 15 cow-years within the three regions was 4960. The study was part of a project on claw health of Norwegian cattle where the main focus was to compare claw health in tie stalls and free stalls (Sogstad et al, 2005a). Consequently herds were allocated to two groups: tie stalls or free stalls.…”

Section: Selection Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bovine claw and limb disorders related to culling and carcass characteristics

et al. 2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Most lesions were mild (score 1). The prevalence of moderate and severe (score 2 + 3) did not exceed 5% for any of the lesions (Sogstad et al, 2005a).…”

Section: Study Populationmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Definitions in Table 1 are adapted from Bergsten (2000). The cluster effect for claw trimmer was significant only for heelhorn erosions (Sogstad et al, 2005a).…”

Section: Recording Of Datamentioning

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bovine claw and limb disorders related to culling and carcass characteristics

et al. 2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Cows permanently housed are more likely to show digital skin and horn disorders owing to standing constantly on concrete and wet manure (Wells et al, 1993;Bergsten and Herlin, 1996;Gitau et al, 1996;Wells et al, 1999;Cook, 2003;de Vries et al, 2005;Leach et al, 2005;Sogstad et al, 2005;Haskell et al, 2006;Holzhauer et al, 2012). Even limited access to pasture or simply allowing cows to exercise in paddocks was shown to reduce lameness incidence, severity and time to full recovery (Gustafson, 1993;Vermunt and Greenough, 1994;Loberg et al, 2004;Regula et al, 2004;Bielfeldt et al, 2005;Hernandez-Mendo et al, 2007;Rouha-Mülleder et al, 2009;Burow et al, 2013;Richert et al, 2013b).…”

Section: Housing Type Including Pastures or Outdoor Pensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the assessment of dairy cow welfare in small‐scale farming systems

2015

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This opinion reviews information on small-scale dairy cow farming systems in Europe, including the impact of production diseases on welfare of cows, and proposes a methodology for welfare assessment in those systems. To address specific expectations of consumers that food be produced locally or regionally or maintaining acceptable animal welfare conditions, in addition to herd size, criteria to define farms as "non-conventional" were proposed. Several sources were investigated for identifying criteria for the description and categorisation of small-scale farms, including dairy umbrella organisations and literature. In addition to herd size (up to 75 cows), proposed criteria related to small-scale farming comprise the workforce source, input level, indigenous breed use and production type certification. To cover the large diversity of farming systems across Europe, it was proposed that farms meeting at least two of these criteria be considered non-conventional. To adapt the welfare assessment to small-scale farms, the same risk factors and welfare consequences, as measured by corresponding animalbased measures identified in previous opinions for intensive farming systems were considered to be also relevant for small-scale systems. In addition, factors related to resources provided on pasture (e.g. shelter), management of pasture (e.g. mixing herds) and management of the cows (e.g. use of local breeds) were considered more likely to be present in small-scale systems. An on-farm survey was run to collect data for welfare assessment from 124 European farms. The distribution of risk factors and animal-based measures varied across the full range in study farms and showed similar patterns in farms with different grazing systems (from no time to full year on pasture). The animal-based measures identified for intensive farming are well suited for application in smallscale dairy farms. Production disease impact on the individual animal's welfare state does not depend on herd size or farming system.

show abstract

“…Providing a clean, dry, and comfortable surface for cows to rest on is important for the welfare of dairy cows, as they spend approximately 12 h per day resting [15]. The lameness prevalence appears to be greater in freestall facilities compared with other management systems such as tie-stall housing [3,23]. Leg lesions were observed less frequently in cows housed in deep-bedded sand stalls than cows on mattresses [11] and severe lesions were less prevalent in sand beds than on mattresses [28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%