Zoometric variables and LTDA
Perusal of predictive model coefficient of the predictive model reflect the mean variation in the logodds of “LTDA”. For instance, an increase of one unit in the variable “Height at withers” (CH) is associated with a mean decrease of 0.2985 in the logodds of “LTDA” presence (p = .003). With respect to neck length, the estimated value of the coefficient was -0.235, which is interpreted as a decrease in log odds (p = .015). With respect to head length, the coefficient was 0.009, however, it was not statistically significant (p = .581) (Table 1). The McFadden pseudo R
2 of the model was 0.220.
Productive variables
Descriptive statistics for Productive variables are shown in Table 2. A One-way MANOVA was conducted to determine whether there is a difference between positive and negative cows to LTDA on productive variables (Number of lactations, Days in milk and Average daily milk production per cow [kg]) (Fig 3). There was non-significant difference in Productive variables based on LTDA, F(1, 118) = 0.819, p = 0.486; partial eta squared = 0.02.
Reproductive variables
We fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no difference between positive and negative cows to LTDA on productive variables (Number of lactations, Days in milk and Average daily milk production per cow [kg]).
Descriptive statistics for the reproductive variables are shown on Table 3. One-way MANOVA was conducted to determine whether there is a difference between positives and negatives cows to LTDA on reproductive variables (Number of inseminations, Open days and Body condition score) (Fig 4). There was significant difference in Reproductive variables based on LTDA, F(1, 118) = 5.55, p = 0.001; partial eta squared = 0.013.
We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is difference between positive and negative cows to LTDA with respect to Reproductive variables.
This study postulated two hypotheses. The first hypothesis postulated that there exists an association between the zoometric traits of Holstein cows (HC, NM, HM) and LTDA and that this lesion of the anterior train exerts an influence on the productive and reproductive performance of the cattle. Similarly, the second hypothesis postulated that the presence of LTDA impacts both productive (LC, DIM and PLD) and reproductive variables (AI, OD and BCS).
The findings of this study provide evidence to support the initial hypothesis, as demonstrated by the observation that two of the zoometric variables (HC and NM) exhibited an impact on the incidence of LTDA. However, no such effect was detected for HM on LTDA. In this context, the zoometric variables of height at withers and neck length have been found to demonstrate a significant negative association with LTDA. That is, as the height of the cow at the withers increases and its neck length increases, the prevalence of LTDA decreases. The design of the automatic traps’ support wall and the presence of a crust of manure adhering to it due to inadequate cleaning of the inner sidewalk area of the pen did not appear to affect the height and neck length of cows (
Barrera-Flores et al., 2024,
Sadiq et al., 2021). Conversely, cows with a conformation characterized by low height and short neck encounter difficulties in accessing the feed trough. To address this challenge, cows are forced to approach the trough at an angle, resulting in their hooves making contact with the trough’s wall. This leads to the stiffening of their forelimbs, which serves as the primary support for their body weight (
Temple and Manteca, 2020).
With regard to the second hypothesis, an association between LTDA and productive variables was not observed (p>0.5), indicating that foot lesions in dairy cattle do not affect milk production. However, other studies have reported a negative association between milk production and limb diseases. Consequently, in regions where intensive cattle milk production is the norm, a negative impact of locomotion problems on milk production has been observed in response to the demand for high productivity. This phenomenon has been demonstrated to culminate in an augmented risk of hoof disorders
(Bell et al., 2009, Leach et al., 2010). Conversely, it has been documented that approximately one-third of Holstein dairy cows in Spain encounter a minimum of one hoof disorder annually (
Charfeddine and Pérez-Cabal, 2014a, 2017). Comparable trends have been observed in the United Kingdom, with estimates ranging from 21%
(Clarkson et al., 1996) to 36%
(Leach et al., 2010). In the Netherlands, more than 70% of dairy cows are affected by at least one hoof disorder
(Somers et al., 2003, Van Der Waaij et al., 2005). However, these studies have not examined the potential role of body conformation and trough design as a contributing factor to the observed hoof problems.
A study of dairy cattle was conducted to evaluate the impact of lameness on milk production
(Green et al., 2002). The study concluded that cows with high milk yields in a herd may experience a reduction in their potential if they become lame. The authors of the study reported that a decline in milk production was observed from four months before to five months after a cow was diagnosed as clinically lame, resulting in a milk loss of up to 360 kilograms (range 160 to 550 kilograms) during a lactation period. This finding aligns with the conclusions reported by
(Huxley et al., 2013), who examined the repercussions of lameness on the health, animal welfare
(Arnott et al., 2017) and productivity of dairy cows. The aforementioned findings underscore the necessity of formulating strategies for the timely detection of locomotion problems in cows (
Charfeddine and Pérez-Cabal, 2014b), whether due to torsion, asymmetry, or lameness, in order to mitigate losses in milk production (
Dolecheck and Bewley, 2018,
Huxley, 2013,
Mason et al., 2024, Robcis et al., 2023). In contrast, lame cows appear to be more prone to postpartum uterine infections, experience higher levels of negative energy balance, resume ovarian cyclicity at a lower rate during the puerperium and exhibit lower potential to conceive and higher pregnancy losses
(Tsousis et al., 2022). In the context of LTDA and reproductive variables (p<0.01), an association was observed, primarily with BCS. A high BCS value (>4.0) is indicative of higher body weight, which, when added to advanced gestation, prevents the cow from a comfortable approach to the trough and thus, to an increased occurrence of LTDA
(Barker et al., 2010, EFSA, 2009,
Sadiq et al., 2021,
Weigele et al., 2018). Furthermore, cows with short stature, high body condition and advanced gestation, whether uniparous or multiparous, that inhabit pens with very wide walls and poor cleanliness and manure crust accumulation, are more prone to LTDA
(Siachos et al., 2024, Whay and Shearer, 2017). To mitigate the consequences of trough size on LTDA, dairy farms with crossbred populations (Holstein + Jersey), (Holstein + Ashire),
(Hu et al., 2021, Van Der Waaij et al., 2005) should consider adjusting the trough floor areas by elevating the trough with an over floor
(Somers et al., 2003, Thomsen et al., 2023). Furthermore, as
Siachos et al. (2024) observe, enhancing the frequency and thoroughness of the approach of the ration to the trough wall is pivotal in preventing LTDA in housed dairy cattle. This approach is thus conducive to the promotion of animal welfare and, by extension, the enhancement of the performance of dairy farms. As
Kumar et al. (2017) also observe, it was demonstrated that animals receiving adequate care exhibited increased productivity.
The findings of this study could be enhanced by increasing the sample size, incorporating age related variations in LTDA lesions and including the severity of the lesions (mild, moderate, or severe) as a variable. Additionally, measuring the effects on production and reproduction as the animal ages would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding.
