CR Bovine Lameness Flashcards
1
Q
- Severely lame, right hind limb
- DairyCo Mobility Score 3
- The foot was badly overgrown (before trimming)
- The cow reacts when the lateral claw is “tweaked”
- What is your diagnosis?
- How will you treat this cow?
A
What is your diagnosis
- Sole Ulcer / Haemorrhage
How will you treat this cow
- Successful treatment of sole ulcers involves steps to relieve the pinching and inflammation, which is most effectively achieved by:
- Dutch 5 step claw trimming -steps 1-3 correct claw shape and confirm the sole ulcer.
- Often the lesion will be covered by overgrown and diseased horn, the lesion becoming visible after stage 3. (Fig 2)
- Step 4 relieves weight off the ulcerated claw. This is most effectively done using a block.(Fig 4) but trimming down back 2/3 of heel on the affected claw will add a height difference.
- Step 5 involves trimming the loose collar of horn from around the neck of the sole ulcer and creating some thinning sole around the base of the ulcer so the sole is flexible(red arrows) (Fig 2, Figs 3a and 3b).
- Providing soft surfaces under-foot (pasture, straw bedded yard)
- Encouraging cows to rest (free access to comfortable lying area and plenty of feed space).
- Anti-inflammatory drugs
2
Q
Mr Fairclough asks you to revisit the animal 10 days later
Despite your treatment, the cow is now virtually none weight bearing. The lateral claw is swollen around and above the coronary band. The skin has an angry purple tinged appearance
You suspect deep digital sepsis in or around the distal interphalangeal joint
- Outline the options Mr Fairclough has in this case
A
- Claw amputation
- Coring
- Navicular bone resection
- Drilling and flushing
3
Q
What are some pros and cons of claw amputation?
A
Pros:
- Removal of problem
- Quick and easy
- Good when other treatments have failed
Cons:
- Shortening of the life
- Lowered production
4
Q
What are some pros and cons of coring?
A
Pros:
- Quick and easy
- Good success rate
Cons:
- Not effective if the cored hole if filled with contaminate
- Large amount of aftercare
- May need antibiotics
- The navicular bone is often involved the attachment of the deep digital flexor tendon is often disrupted resulting in the distal interphalangeal joint fusing with the digit in n abnormal top up position, unless the toe of the treat digit is wired to the sound digit Navicular bone resection ü Drilling and flushing More refined ü Solve it û More time û Needs surgical skill û Leads to disruption of the attachment of the DDFT û The toe of the affected digit must be wired to the sound digit Drilling and flushing ü Less trauma than coringornavicular bone resection ü Does not nesccassarilyresult in a disruption to DDFT tendon attachment ü Post op care can be carried out without rasingfoot ü Earlier and nmoresatisfactory resolution û Flushing needs to be done twice a day û Needs multiple syringes to flush
5
Q
What are the pros and cons of navicular bone resection?
A
Pros:
- Drilling and flushing
- More refined
- Solve it
Cons:
- More time
- Needs surgical skill
- Leads to disruption of the attachment of the DDFT
- The toe of the affected digit must be wired to the sound digit
6
Q
What are the pros and cons of drilling and flushing?
A
Pros:
- Less trauma than coring or navicular bone resection
- Does not nesccassarily result in a disruption to DDFT tendon attachment
- Post op care can be carried out without rasingfoot
- Earlier and more satisfactory resolution
Cons:
- Flushing needs to be done twice a day
- Needs multiple syringes to flush
7
Q
Treatment Data Analysis:
A
- Oxytet, penicillin, sulphonamide – but these have a withdrawal period
- Excenel – 3rd gen cephlasporin
- Farmers need antibiotic training now
- Lots of ulcers and swollen feet
- Looks like they are targeting grade 3 lameness instead of grade 2 (reactive not proactive)
- 56 and 741 and 71 – repeated occurrences of the same thingsà may consider culling for these (cost and welfare) – once they have had it once they are likely to reoccur (esp if the bursa gets affected)
- 2-3 cases of lamenss a mth
- 24 cases per year, but incomplete records (lower prevalence of lameness than UK average in normal herd) –this farm is around 10 in 100 cows suffering a year
- Gap in record from sept to jan
- The notes are very brief, doesn’t specify leg always, doesn’t specify how many days in between jabs – vague notes, no follow ups noted – until they come in with same issue or worsened; only considering lame cows and not others
- Infor – cow number, date, score, parity (if kept coming back), cause, which foot, treatment/ action, follow up- was there an improvement (previous score to see if going up and down) – electronic records are good for this
- Very subjective analysis given in these records
- Get vet involved, but compare opinions on the words eg ‘lame’ means different for farmer and vet
- Different scoring systems between farmer and vet
8
Q
Background
As you have shown an interest in lameness, your client asks for an opinion on a wider ‘problem’ he has recently encountered. As part of a new milk contract providing liquid milk to one of the large supermarket chains, your client has been asked to routinely assess the prevalence of lameness in his herd by “mobility scoring” his cattle on a quarterly basis. As part of the contract, one of the assessments must be conducted by an external assessor appointed by the milk buyer.
- The first two assessments of the herd were carried out on the 16th of January and the 21st of April by the lead herdsperson. She based her assessment on a pictorial guide to locomotion scoring which she downloaded from the “Zinpro” website
- http://www.zinpro.com/lameness/dairy/locomotion-scoring
Look at these results?
A
These seems a much more complicated scoring system
If they go out to pasture, they may have more stony tracks which could cause more to be lame
Be careful blaming the herds person, could ‘blame’ the system- teach them how to use DairyCo
9
Q
- The third assessment was conducted on the 1st of July by the external assessor, appointed by the milk buyer, using the DairyCo mobility score (http://www.dairyco.org.uk/resources-library/technical-information/dairyco-healthy-feet-programme/mobility-score/)
Results of External Assessment:
- Your client asks for an opinion because of the discrepancy between the levels of lameness reported by the herdsperson and the external assessor.
- You visit the farm and repeat the mobility score; your findings largely agree with those of the external assessor.
Analyse and discuss the mobility score data.
A
- Farmer’s assessment the lameness was going up, in comparison to the external assessor- extremely unlikely that suddenly more cows are lame between April and July
- The 3 score must be easier to lame
- 18 severely lame (in external assessor) – should be easy to notice by the farmer but haven’t been, but they do see them every day
- Lameness will always be underestimated, however this seems a very large difference between farmer and external
10
Q
Another useful link for mobility scoring is as follows:
11
Q
Based on both this data and the treatment records, what do you recommend to your client?
A
- Suggest using videos to help farmers score their cows (zinpro – is only on picture) – also 1-5 has much more subtle difference, therefore it is difficult to assess the differences, 1-3 is much easier
- It is almost better to over-estimate the cows, bring in the ones that are 2 – so you are re-looking at them again
- Ask if the farmer if he has a paraprofessional that comes in to foot trim, this could help with the mobility scoring
- Have an evening meeting – to talk through anatomy and also talk through lameness, talk through the cost implications of not treating etc (catching early)
- Consider underlying causes and management (time of year, trimming etc.) – may need rubber matting, consider the stalls- may be do a farm walk and see what could be improved (observe cows)
- Eg 1/3rd are sole ulcers, how can we manage this better
- More regular scoring, if possible could they do it monthly
- Keep better records
