• 1. Griffin D, Perino L, Hudson D. G93–1159 feedlot lameness. Historical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension. Paper 196. 1993. Available at: digitalcommons.unl.edu/extensionhist/196. Accessed Oct 24, 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Tibbetts GK, Devin TM, Griffin D, et al. Effects of a single foot rot incident on weight performance of feedlot steers. Prof Anim Sci 2006; 22: 450453.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Terrell SP, Thomson DU, Reinhardt CD, et al. Perception of lameness management, education, and effects on animal welfare of feedlot cattle by consulting nutritionists, veterinarians, and feedlot managers. Bovine Pract 2014; 48: 5360.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Federation of Animal Science Societies. Guide for care and use of agricultural animals in research and teaching. 3rd ed. Champaign, Ill: FASS Inc, 2010. Available at: www.fass.org/docs/agguide3rd/Ag_Guide_3rd_ed.pdf. Accessed Oct 24, 2016.

  • 5. Misikimins D. Predominant causes of lameness in feedlot and stocker cattle, in Proceedings. 12th Int Symp Lameness Ruminants 2002; 147151.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Van Metre DC, Wenz JR, Garry FB. Lameness in cattle: rule of thumb, in Proceedings. 38th Annu MeetAm Assoc Bovine Pract 2005; 4043.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Green TM, Guichon PT, Thomson DU, et al. Time of onset, location, and duration of lameness in beef cattle in a commercial feedyard (report of progress #1065). Manhattan, Kan: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, 2012; 2124.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Manson FJ, Leaver JD, Leaver JD. The influence of concentrate on locomotion and clinical lameness in dairy cattle. Anim Sci 1988; 47: 185190.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Sprecher DJ, Hostetler DE, Kaneene JB. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 1997; 47: 11791187.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Breuer K, Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, et al. Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2000; 66: 273288.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Whay HR, Main DC, Green LE, et al. Farmer perception of lameness prevalence, in Proceedings. 12th International Symposium on Lameness in Ruminants 2002; 355358.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Ahola JK, Foster HA, Vanoverbeke DL, et al. Survey of quality defects in market beef and dairy cows and bulls sold through livestock auction markets in the Western United States: I. Incidence rates. J. Anim Sci 2011; 89: 14741483.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Incidence of lameness and association of cause and severity of lameness on the outcome for cattle on six commercial beef feedlots

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS 66506.
  • | 2 Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS 66506.
  • | 3 Zinpro Corp, 10400 Viking Dr, Ste 240, Eden Prairie, MN 55344.
  • | 4 Department of Statistics, College of Arts and Sciences, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS 66506.
  • | 5 Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS 66506.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To describe the incidence of specific causes of lameness and the associations of cause and severity of lameness on the outcome for cattle on commercial feedlots.

DESIGN Dynamic population longitudinal study.

ANIMALS Cattle on 6 commercial feedlots in Kansas and Nebraska during a 12-month period (mean daily population, 243,602 cattle; range, 223,544 to 252,825 cattle).

PROCEDURES Feedlot personnel were trained to use a standardized diagnostic algorithm and locomotion score (LMS) system to identify and classify cattle by cause and severity of lameness. Information regarding lameness cause, severity, and treatments was recorded for individual cattle. Cattle were monitored until they left the feedlot (ie, outcome; shipped with pen mates [shipped], culled prematurely because of lameness [realized], or euthanized or died [died]). Incidence rates for various causes of lameness, LMSs, and outcomes were calculated. The respective associations of cause of lameness and LMS with outcome were evaluated.

RESULTS Lameness was identified in 2,532 cattle, resulting in an overall lameness incidence rate of 1.04 cases/100 animal-years. Realized and mortality rates were 0.096 cattle/100 animal-years and 0.397 deaths/100 animal-years, respectively. Injury to the proximal portion of a limb was the most frequently identified cause of lameness followed by undefined lameness, septic joint or deep digital sepsis, and interdigital phlegmon (foot rot). As the LMS (lameness severity) at lameness detection increased, the percentage of cattle that died but not the percentage of cattle that were realized increased.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results provided clinically useful prognostic guidelines for management of lame feedlot cattle.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To describe the incidence of specific causes of lameness and the associations of cause and severity of lameness on the outcome for cattle on commercial feedlots.

DESIGN Dynamic population longitudinal study.

ANIMALS Cattle on 6 commercial feedlots in Kansas and Nebraska during a 12-month period (mean daily population, 243,602 cattle; range, 223,544 to 252,825 cattle).

PROCEDURES Feedlot personnel were trained to use a standardized diagnostic algorithm and locomotion score (LMS) system to identify and classify cattle by cause and severity of lameness. Information regarding lameness cause, severity, and treatments was recorded for individual cattle. Cattle were monitored until they left the feedlot (ie, outcome; shipped with pen mates [shipped], culled prematurely because of lameness [realized], or euthanized or died [died]). Incidence rates for various causes of lameness, LMSs, and outcomes were calculated. The respective associations of cause of lameness and LMS with outcome were evaluated.

RESULTS Lameness was identified in 2,532 cattle, resulting in an overall lameness incidence rate of 1.04 cases/100 animal-years. Realized and mortality rates were 0.096 cattle/100 animal-years and 0.397 deaths/100 animal-years, respectively. Injury to the proximal portion of a limb was the most frequently identified cause of lameness followed by undefined lameness, septic joint or deep digital sepsis, and interdigital phlegmon (foot rot). As the LMS (lameness severity) at lameness detection increased, the percentage of cattle that died but not the percentage of cattle that were realized increased.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results provided clinically useful prognostic guidelines for management of lame feedlot cattle.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Thomson (dthomson@ksu.edu).