Prevalence of digital dermatitis using mirror scoring in Finnish freestall dairy herds.

Digital dermatitis (DD) is a severe bacterial hoof disease found worldwide. The disease can be classified into 5 different stages, denoted as M1 to M4 and M4.1, by clinical examination. The main objective of this study was to estimate prevalence of DD lesions in Finnish freestall dairy cattle population through hind feet inspection of standing cows with a mirror. Another aim was to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of mirror scoring on standing cows in a pen or in a milking parlor without washing the feet. Three veterinarians visited 81 randomly selected herds across the country. During the herd visits, hind feet of standing cows (n = 7,010) were scored with a mirror without washing the feet, either when the cows were standing in a pen (n = 4,992) or in the milking parlor (n = 2018). In total, 128 cows (111 from pen and 17 from milking parlor) including 256 feet were chosen with cross-sectional sampling and scored in a trimming chute. Animal-level sensitivity for scoring M2 lesions with a mirror was 55% and specificity was 97%; for all active DD lesions (M1, M2, or M4.1), sensitivity was 36% and specificity was 96%. Sensitivity for scoring any DD lesions was 90% and specificity was 82%. The bias-corrected sensitivity and specificity for scoring any DD lesions were 79% and 92%, respectively. The bias-corrected sensitivity and specificity for scoring M2 DD lesions were 10% and 100%. We found M2 lesions in 12.1% of the study herds, and true herd-level prevalence was the same. Altogether, 33.3% (true prevalence 28.4%) of the herds had either M1, M2, or M4.1 DD lesions. However, only 0.7% (true prevalence 5.4%) of cows in total had active M2 lesions. The within-herd prevalence of M2 lesions (in herds where at least 1 cow had a M2 lesion) was 5.7% and varied between 0.4% and 18.8%. Herds with active DD lesions also had more any DD lesions than herds without active DD lesions. The herd-level prevalence was higher than previously thought, with only 1 herd without any DD lesions. However, the animal-level prevalence of active DD lesions was relatively low. Farmers and veterinarians need to be informed of the disease and possible control measures. Because of the low within-herd prevalence, the control of the disease might be easier than in countries where DD is widespread. Further studies are needed to identify factors associated with DD prevalence in Finnish dairy herds.

Toxicity Screening of Fungal Extracts and Metabolites, Xenobiotic Chemicals, and Indoor Dusts with In Vitro and Ex Vivo Bioassay Methods.

It is controversial how useful bioassays are for identifying the in vivo toxicity of hazardous environmental exposures. In this study, fruiting bodies of forest mushrooms (n = 46), indoor mold colonies (n = 412), fungal secondary metabolites (n = 18), xenobiotic chemicals such as biocides and detergents (n = 6), and methanol extracts of indoor dusts from urban buildings (n = 26) were screened with two different bioactivity assays: boar sperm motility inhibition (BSMI) and inhibition of cell proliferation (ICP) tests. For the forest mushrooms, the toxicity testing result was positive for 100% of poisonous-classified species, 69% of non-edible-classified species, and 18% of edible-classified species. Colonies of 21 isolates of Ascomycota mold fungal species previously isolated from water-damaged buildings proved to be toxic in the tests. Out of the fungal metabolites and xenobiotic chemicals, 94% and 100% were toxic, respectively. Out of the indoor dusts from moldy-classified houses (n = 12) and from dry, mold-free houses (n = 14), 50% and 57% were toxic, respectively. The bioassay tests, however, could not differentiate the samples from indoor dusts of moldy-classified buildings from those from the mold-free buildings. Xenobiotic chemicals and indoor dusts were more toxic in the BSMI assay than in the ICP assay, whereas the opposite results were obtained with the Ascomycota mold colonies and fungal secondary metabolites. The tests recognized unknown methanol-soluble thermoresistant substances in indoor settled dusts. Toxic indoor dusts may indicate a harmful exposure, regardless of whether the toxicity is due to xenobiotic chemicals or microbial metabolites.