Invited review: Prevalence, risk factors, treatment, and barriers to best practice adoption for lameness and injuries in dairy cattle-A narrative review.

Lameness and leg injuries are both painful and prevalent across the dairy industry, and are a major welfare concern. There has been a considerable amount of research focused on investigating the risk factors associated with lameness and injuries and how they might be prevented and treated. The objectives of this narrative review were to summarize herd-level prevalence estimates, risk factors, strategies for prevention, control, and treatment of these conditions, and the barriers to best practice adoption for lameness and injuries on dairy farms. There is a relatively high within-herd prevalence of lameness on dairy farms globally, with a recent systematic review estimating the mean prevalence at 22.8%. Similarly, there is a relatively high prevalence of hock injuries, with within-herd estimates ranging from 12% to 81% of cows affected. Knee and neck injuries have been reported to be less common, with 6% to 43% and 1% to 33%, respectively. Numerous risk factors have been associated with the incidence of lameness, notably housing (e.g., access to pasture, bedding depth, bedding type, flooring type, stall design), management (e.g., stall cleanliness, frequency of trimming, holding times, stocking density), and cow-level (e.g., body condition, parity, injured hocks) factors. Risk factors associated with hock injuries can be similarly classified into housing (e.g., bedding type and depth, outdoor access, parlor type, stall design), management (e.g., bedding depth, cleanliness), and cow (e.g., parity, days in milk, lameness) factors. Key preventative approaches for lameness include routine preventative and corrective hoof trimming, improving hoof cushioning and traction through access to pasture or adding rubber flooring, deep-bedded stalls, sand bedding, ensuring appropriate stocking densities, reduced holding times, and the frequent use of routine footbaths. Very little research has been conducted on hock, knee, and neck injury prevention and recovery. Numerous researchers have concluded that both extrinsic (e.g., time, money, space) and intrinsic (e.g., farmer attitude, perception, priorities, and mindset) barriers exist to addressing lameness and injuries on dairy farms. There are many diverse stakeholders in lameness and injury management including the farmer, farm staff, veterinarian, hoof trimmer, nutritionist, and other advisors. Addressing dairy cattle lameness and injuries must, therefore, consider the people involved, as it is these people who are influencing and implementing on-farm decisions related to lameness prevention, treatment, and control.

Invited review: Qualitative research in dairy science-A narrative review.

The use of qualitative research in dairy science has increased considerably in recent years, providing the opportunity to inform research and practice. This review aims to enhance the accessibility of qualitative research among a range of audiences and specifically: (1) provide an overview of what qualitative research is and the value it can bring to scientific inquiries in the dairy context, (2) illustrate the emergence of qualitative dairy science research in the past 15 to 20 years, (3) outline the role of the researcher and key philosophical assumptions underlying qualitative research, (4) describe qualitative research approaches and methods used in dairy science research, and (5) highlight key aspects of qualitative inquiry used to ensure research trustworthiness. Qualitative approaches in dairy science enable researchers to understand myriad topics including stakeholder relationships, decision-making, and behaviors regarding dairy cattle management, animal welfare, and disease prevention and control measures. Approaches that were used often for qualitative data collection were individual interviews and focus groups, and variations of thematic analysis were common analytical frameworks. To assess public values, attitudes, and perceptions, mixed methods questionnaires that combined quantitative data with qualitative data from open-ended questions were used regularly. Although still used infrequently, action research and participatory approaches have the potential to bridge the research-implementation gap by facilitating group-based learning and on-farm changes. Some publications described the philosophical assumptions inherent to qualitative research, and many authors included reflexivity and positionality statements. Although a comprehensive description of strategies to meet trustworthiness criteria for qualitative research was uncommon, many publications mentioned certain aspects of trustworthiness, such as member checking, researcher triangulation, and the recording of reflexive notes. Qualitative research has been used to deepen our understanding of phenomena relevant to the dairy sector and has opened the door for a broad array of new opportunities. In addition to having merit on its own, qualitative research can guide, inform, and expand on quantitative research, and an understanding of the core pillars of qualitative research can foster interdisciplinary collaborations.

Calf management and welfare in the Canadian and US dairy industries: Where do we go from here?

The objective of this narrative review was to compare the results of the 2015 Canadian National Dairy Study and the 2014 US National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) Dairy Studies, with a specific focus on calf management and welfare, and to interpret these findings within more recent calf health research to describe where we need to go next in the North American dairy industry. Situating results of periodic national studies within the context of past and recent research provides an opportunity to gauge adoption of recommendations and best practices and to help identify persistent and new challenges that the industry is wrestling with to help guide research needs. Through this review of the 2 national studies, we identified several strengths of the Canadian and US dairy industries. In each area of calf health management, improvements relative to previous NAHMS studies and the published literature have been found in the level of mortality, amount of colostrum fed, housing, and the number of producers using pain control for disbudding and dehorning. There were, however, some areas that present clear opportunities for improvement. Specifically, although mortality levels have improved, a large number of calves die at birth, within the first 48 h of life, and during the preweaning period. To improve the health of calves in early life, producers could look at feeding high-quality colostrum at 10% of body weight in the first feeding, as well as feeding a larger amount of milk during the preweaning period. The barriers to making these management changes and improving overall calf health need to be identified in future studies. The majority of preweaning calves in Canada and the United States are housed in individual housing. This represents a clear opportunity for improvement because recent research has identified the positive aspects of group housing. Finally, with respect to pain control, improvements are needed (particularly in the United States) to ensure that pain management is provided when disbudding and dehorning calves. Although the science is clear on pain management, discussions with producers are needed to identify reasons for the lack of uptake.