Movement Behaviour of Traditionally Managed Cattle in the Eastern Province of Zambia Captured Using Two-Dimensional Motion Sensors

From reverse innovation to global innovation in animal health: A review

Reverse innovation refers to learning from or diffusion of innovations developed in low income settings and further translated to industrialized countries. There is lack of consensus regarding terminology, but the idea that innovations in low-income countries are promising for adoption in high-income contexts is not new. However, in healthcare literature globally, the vast majority of publications referring to 'disruptive innovation' were published in the last ten years. To assess the potential of innovative developments and technologies for improving animal health, we initiated a literature review in 2020. We used a combined approach, incorporating targeted searching in PubMed using a key word algorithm with a snowball technique, to identify 120 relevant publications and extract data for qualitative coding. Heterogeneity of articles precluded meta-analysis, quality scoring and risk of bias analysis. We can distinguish technical innovations like new digital devices, diagnostic tests and procedures, and social innovations of intersectoral cooperation. We profile two case studies to describe potential global innovations: an integrated surveillance and response system in Somali Regional State, Ethiopia and a blockchain secured One Health intervention to optimally provide post-exposure prophylaxis for rabies exposed people in West Africa. Innovation follows no borders and can also occur in low-income settings, under constraints of cost, lack of services and infrastructure. Lower administrative and legal barriers may contribute to produce innovations that would not be possible under conditions of high density of regulation. We recommend using the term global innovation, which highlights those emanating from international partnership to solve problems of global implications.

Risk factors associated with cows' lying time, stall and cows' own cleanliness in smallholder dairy farms in Kenya

Background and Aim:

The welfare of animals kept in livestock production systems has raised concerns around the world. Adult dairy cattle require adequate rest and spend approximately 12 h/day lying down. This cross-sectional study aimed to determine the stall factors and management practices affecting cows’ lying time, stall cleanliness, and cows’ cleanliness (udder and upper leg), in smallholder dairy cows in Meru County of Kenya.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 106 milking cows from 73 farms were assessed for daily lying time and cleanliness. Data loggers were used to record the lying time of cows for 3 days. Stall, udder, and upper leg cleanliness were assessed using a 5-score system: 1 (very clean) to 5 (very dirty). Management information was acquired using a questionnaire that was administered face-to-face to the farmers in their native Kimeru language. Univariable and multivariable linear and logistic regression models were fit to determine factors associated with cows’ lying time and dichotomized stall and cows’ own cleanliness, respectively.

Results:

The mean daily lying time was 10.9±2.2 h, and the mean stall cleanliness score was 2.4±1.0. The mean average cleanliness scores of the udder and upper legs were 1.9±0.7 and 2.5±1.1, respectively. Overall, 35% of the stalls were categorized as dirty (>2.5), whereas 13% and 47% of the cows had udder and leg cleanliness scores >2.5, respectively. From the final multivariable models (p<0.05), daily lying time increased by 1.0 h for cows older than 5.25 years versus younger cows. Conversely, lying time decreased by 1.0 h with stall cleanliness scores >2.5 and by 1.6 h with poorly positioned neck rails. In an interaction term, addition of new bedding at least once a day without removing stall manure at least once a day decreased the daily lying time of the cows by 1.5 h, whereas failure to add new bedding at least once a day but removing stall manure at least once a day decreased the lying time of the cows by 1.2 h. Farm-level risk factors for stall dirtiness (>2.5) included delayed cleaning of the alley (odds ratio [OR]=6.6, p=0.032), lack of bedding (OR=4.9, p=0.008), and standing idle and/or backward in the stall (OR=10.5, p=0.002). Stalls categorized as dirty (OR=2.9, p=0.041) and lack of bedding (OR=2.7, p=0.065) were cow- and farm-level risk factors for dirtiness of the udder (>2.5), respectively, whereas the stall being dirty (OR=2.3, p=0.043) was the only risk factor (cow level) for dirtiness of the upper legs (>2.5).

Conclusion:

It was recommended that farmers should pay attention to the specific factors identified regarding the stall design (e.g., neck rail position) and bedding/manure management that impact the cleanliness of cows and their lying time.