Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:23:59.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farmers’ practices, motivators and barriers for adoption of treatments of digital dermatitis in dairy farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2013

A. Relun ,
R. Guatteo ,
M. M. Auzanneau  and
N. Bareille
A. Relun
Affiliation:
Department Welfare Health Traceability and Hygiene, French Livestock Institute, F-75595 Paris, France Oniris, Nantes-Atlantic College of Veterinary Medicine and Food Sciences and Engineering, LUNAM Université, UMR Biologie Epidémiologie et Analyse de Risques, CS 40706, F-44307 Nantes, France INRA, UMR1300 BioEpAR, F-44307 Nantes, France
R. Guatteo*
Affiliation:
Oniris, Nantes-Atlantic College of Veterinary Medicine and Food Sciences and Engineering, LUNAM Université, UMR Biologie Epidémiologie et Analyse de Risques, CS 40706, F-44307 Nantes, France
M. M. Auzanneau
Affiliation:
Oniris, Nantes-Atlantic College of Veterinary Medicine and Food Sciences and Engineering, LUNAM Université, UMR Biologie Epidémiologie et Analyse de Risques, CS 40706, F-44307 Nantes, France INRA, UMR1300 BioEpAR, F-44307 Nantes, France
N. Bareille
Affiliation:
Oniris, Nantes-Atlantic College of Veterinary Medicine and Food Sciences and Engineering, LUNAM Université, UMR Biologie Epidémiologie et Analyse de Risques, CS 40706, F-44307 Nantes, France INRA, UMR1300 BioEpAR, F-44307 Nantes, France
*
E-mail: raphael.guatteo@oniris-nantes.fr
Get access

Abstract

This study aimed to catalogue the digital dermatitis (DD) treatment practices used by French dairy farmers and to identify the motivators and barriers to the adoption of these treatments. A semi-structured survey was conducted involving 65 farmers in the main dairy production areas of France in the spring of 2009. The different treatment modalities implemented by farmers since the first diagnosis of DD in their herds were described. The reasons for adopting or abandoning these treatments were then investigated based on criteria of perceived effectiveness, labour, time, cost and toxicity related to their use. For individual treatments, farmers used 30 different products, applied through three different routes, for 1 to 21 consecutive days. For collective treatments, farmers used 31 products, applied through four different routes, at a rate ranging from once a day to once a year. Several products, especially antibiotics, were used without observing the manufacturer's instructions. The principal criteria for the adoption of a treatment was the perceived effectiveness in healing DD lesions and in limiting recurrence, while the principal barriers to adopting a treatment were the time and labour required for its application, followed by cost. Topical oxytetracycline treatments applied individually were used and adopted the most. They were perceived to be effective in healing DD lesions. However, these treatments were judged labour and time consuming, particularly when many animals had to be treated. Collective treatments combining formalin and copper sulphate often were applied topically using walk-though footbaths. These treatments often were judged to be insufficiently effective in healing DD lesions, difficult to implement, labour and time consuming and costly. The plethora of DD treatment practices and the misuse of some treatments could suggest that there is a lack of guidelines available to farmers on the optimal use and expected effectiveness of treatments. Clinical trials should be conducted to develop recommendations based on scientific rather than empirical data, and to identify the DD control measures which consume the least amount of time and labour.

Keywords

Dairy cowdigital dermatitistreatmentfarmer opinion
Type
Behaviour, welfare and health
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 9 , September 2013 , pp. 1542 - 1550
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anonymous 2009. Liste des pareurs adhérents à l'ANPB – [Listing of hoof-trimers members of the ANPB]. Retrived February 10, 2009, from http://anpb-asso.net/IMG/pdf/adherents2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bender, R, Lange, S 2001. Adjusting for multiple testing – when and how? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 54, 343–349.Google Scholar
Berry, SL, Graham, TW, Mongini, A, Arana, M 1999. The efficacy of serpens spp bacterin combined with topical administration of lincomycin hydrochloride for treatment of papillomatous digital dermatitis (Footwarts) in cows on a dairy in California. The Bovine Practitioner 33, 6–12.Google Scholar
Bruijnis, MRN, Hogeveen, H, Stassen, EN 2010. Assessing economic consequences of foot disorders in dairy cattle using a dynamic stochastic simulation model. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2419–2432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cha, E, Hertl, JA, Bar, D, Grohn, YT 2010. The cost of different types of lameness in dairy cows calculated by dynamic programming. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 97, 1–8.Google Scholar
Cramer, G, Lissemore, KD, Guard, CL, Leslie, KE, Kelton, DF 2008. Herd- and cow-level prevalence of foot lesions in Ontario dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3888–3895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Döpfer, D, Lopez-Benavides, M, Buchalova, M, Mateus, C, Cook, N, Dusick, A, Hemling, T, Socha, M, Read, D, Gomez, A 2011. Clinical, histological, and microbial cure of acute digital dermatitis lesions and the influence of topical treatments upon cure. In Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium and 8th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants (HandBook), Rotorua, New Zealand, 25pp.Google Scholar
FranceAgriMer 2011. Évolution des structures de production laitière en France – lait de vache. Retrived March 8, 2013, from http://www.franceagrimer.fr/content/download/6297/33928/file/production-lait-9-2011.pdfGoogle Scholar
Garforth, C, McKemey, K, Rehman, T, Tranter, R, Cooke, R, Park, J, Dorward, P, Yates, C 2006. Farmers’ attitudes towards techniques for improving oestrus detection in dairy herds in South West England. Livestock Science 103, 158–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, LE, Borkert, J, Monti, G, Tadich, N 2010. Associations between lesion-specific lameness and the milk yield of 1,635 dairy cows from seven herds in the Xth region of Chile and implications for management of lame dairy cows worldwide. Animal Welfare 19, 419–427.Google Scholar
Hernandez, J, Shearer, JK, Elliott, JB 1999. Comparison of topical application of oxytetracycline and four nonantibiotic solutions for treatment of papillomatous digital dermatitis in dairy cows. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 214, 688–690.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holzhauer, M, Bartels, CJ, van Barneveld, M, Vulders, C, Lam, T 2011. Curative effect of topical treatment of digital dermatitis with a gel containing activated copper and zinc chelate. The Veterinary Record 169, 555.Google Scholar
IARC 2004. IARC classifies formaldehyde as carcinogenic to humans Retrived March 8, 2013, from http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2004/pr153.htmlGoogle Scholar
Kofler, J, Pospichal, M, Hofmann-Parisot, M 2004. Efficacy of the non-antibiotic paste Protexin Hoof-Care for topical treatment of digital dermatitis in dairy cows. Journal of Veterinary Medicine. A, Physiology, Pathology, Clinical Medicine 51, 447–452.Google Scholar
Laven, RA 2006. Efficacy of systemic cefquinome and erythromycin against digital dermatitis in cattle. The Veterinary Record 159, 19–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laven, RA, Logue, DN 2006. Treatment strategies for digital dermatitis for the UK. The Veterinary Journal 171, 79–88.Google Scholar
Leach, KA, Whay, HR, Maggs, CM, Barker, ZE, Paul, ES, Bell, AK, Main, DCJ 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 1. Understanding barriers to lameness control on dairy farms. Research in Veterinary Science 89, 311–317.Google Scholar
LeBlanc, SJ, Lissemore, KD, Kelton, DF, Duffield, TF, Leslie, KE 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1267–1279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manske, T, Hultgren, J, Bergsten, C 2002. Topical treatment of digital dermatitis associated with severe heel-horn erosion in a Swedish dairy herd. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 53, 215–231.Google Scholar
Nielsen, BH, Thomsen, PT, Sørensen, JT 2011. Identifying risk factors for poor hind limb cleanliness in Danish loose-housed dairy cows. Animal 5, 1613–1619.Google Scholar
Nishikawa, A, Taguchi, K 2008. Healing of digital dermatitis after a single treatment with topical oxytetracycline in 89 dairy cows. The Veterinary Record 163, 574–576.Google Scholar
Nuccitelli, B, Berry, SL 2007. The long term recurrence of digital dermatitis after treatment with lincomycin HCl on a commercial dairy farm. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Convention of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 289pp.Google Scholar
Nuss, K 2006. Footbaths: the solution to digital dermatitis? The Veterinary Journal 171, 11–13.Google Scholar
Offer, JE, Logue, DN, McNulty, D 2000. Observations of lameness, hoof conformation and development of lesions in dairy cattle over four lactations. The Veterinary Record 147, 105–109.Google Scholar
Read, DH, Walker, RL 1998. Papillomatous digital dermatitis (footwarts) in California dairy cattle: clinical and gross pathologic findings. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 10, 67–76.Google Scholar
Relun, A, Lehebel, A, Bareille, N, Guatteo, R 2012. Effectiveness of different regimens of a collective topical treatment using a solution of copper and zinc chelates in the cure of digital dermatitis in dairy farms under field conditions. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 3722–3735.Google Scholar
Relun, A, Lehebel, A, Bruggink, M, Bareille, N, Guatteo, R. 2013a. Estimation of the relative impact of treatment and herd management practices on prevention of digital dermatitis in French dairy herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.12.015, Published online by Elsevier.Google Scholar
Relun, A, Lehebel, A, Chesnin, A, Guatteo, R, Bareille, N 2013b. Association between digital dermatitis lesions and test-day milk yield of Holstein cows from 41 French dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 2190–2200.Google Scholar
Shearer, JK, Hernandez, J 2000. Efficacy of two modified nonantibiotic formulations (Victory) for treatment of papillomatous digital dermatitis in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 741–745.Google Scholar
Somers, JG, Frankena, K, Noordhuizen-Stassen, EN, Metz, JH 2005. Risk factors for digital dermatitis in dairy cows kept in cubicle houses in The Netherlands. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 71, 11–21.Google Scholar
Speijers, MHM, Baird, LG, Finney, GA, McBride, J, Kilpatrick, DJ, Logue, DN, O'Connell, NE 2010. Effectiveness of different footbath solutions in the treatment of digital dermatitis in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 5782–5791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stehouwer, R, Roth, G 2004. Copper sulfate hoof baths and copper toxicity in soil. Retrived March 3, 2013, from http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/Copper_Sulfate_Hoof_Baths_and_Copper_Toxicity_in_Soil.htmGoogle Scholar
Teixeira, AGV, Machado, VS, Caixeta, LS, Pereira, RV, Bicalho, RC 2010. Efficacy of formalin, copper sulfate, and a commercial footbath product in the control of digital dermatitis. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 3628–3634.Google Scholar
Thomsen, PT, Sørensen, JT, Ersbøll, AK 2008. Evaluation of three commercial hoof-care products used in footbaths in Danish dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 1361–1365.Google Scholar
van Amstel, SR, van Vuuren, S, Tutt, CL 1995. Digital dermatitis: report of an outbreak. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association 66, 177–181.Google Scholar