Treatment of cows that fail to respond to pre-synchronization treatments with a CIDR-Ovsynch regimen improves the overall pregnancy percentage after a double Ovsynch treatment regimen

A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of lameness and digital dermatitis in dairy cattle herds in Egypt

BACKGROUND

Lameness is a significant problem for the dairy industry worldwide. No previous studies have evaluated the prevalence of lameness or digital dermatitis (DD) in dairy cattle herds in Egypt. A total of 16,098 dairy cows from 55 dairy herds in 11 Egyptian governorates underwent visual locomotion scoring using a 4-point scoring system. Cows that had a lameness score ≥ 2 were considered clinically lame. Following manure removal with water and using a flashlight, the cows' hind feet were examined in the milking parlour to identify DD lesions and classify with M-score. Furthermore, each cow was assigned a hock score (a 3-point scale) and a hygiene score (a 4-point scale). The cow-, within-and between-herd prevalence of lameness and DD and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The prevalence of hock lesions and poor cow hygiene was also calculated.

RESULTS

Of the examined cows, 6,883 were found to be clinically lame (42.8%, 95% CI = 42.0-43.5%). The average within-herd prevalence of lameness was 43.1% (95% CI = 35.9-50.3%). None of the dairy herds recruited into the study were found to be free from clinical lameness. The average within-herd prevalence of DD was 6.4% (95% CI = 4.9-8.0%). The herd-level prevalence of DD was 92.7% (95% CI = 85.9-99.6%). Active DD lesions (M1, M2, M4.1) were identified in 464 cows (2.9%) while inactive lesions (M3, M4) were identified in 559 cows (3.5%). The within-herd prevalence of hock lesions (score 2 or 3) was 12.6% (95% CI = 4.03-21.1%) while a severe hock lesion had within-herd prevalence of 0.31% (95% CI = 0.12-0.51%). Cow-level prevalence of hock lesions was 6.2% (n = 847, 95% CI = 5.8-6.2%). The majority of examined cows had a hygiene score of 4 (n = 10,814, prevalence = 70.3%, 95% CI = 69.5-71%).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of lameness was higher than prevalence estimates reported for other countries which could be due to differing management and/or environmental factors. DD was identified at lower prevalence in most herds but with high herd-level prevalence. Poor cow hygiene was notable in most herds. Measures to reduce the prevalence of lameness and to improve cow hygiene in dairy cattle herds in Egypt are therefore needed.