This study focused on a group of 49 high-yielding dairy cows (primarily Holstein Friesians) and how their interactions with wall-mounted automated brushes correlated to their mobility (also described as lameness) score (AHDB 0–3 system. Of the 49 animals in the study, 48 were mobility scored with a sample lameness prevalence of 14.6% (n = 22 score 0, n = 19 score 1, n = 6 score 2 and n = 1 score 3 (score 2 and 3 combined due to low numbers identified)). There was no statistical difference in the number of visits between the lame (score 2 and 3) and sound cows (score 0 and 1); however, there was a statistically relevant decrease in the duration that the lame cows spent brushing per visit (sound 91.7 ± 6.06 s compared to lame 63.0 ± 9.22 s, p = 0.0097). No significant difference was identified in how the lame cows interacted with the brushes (i.e., which body part) when compared to the group. The group, in general, showed a significant preference towards interacting with the brush with their head area (63.95% of interactions observed over the 72 h involved the head). In conclusion, monitoring brush use (duration of use per visit) could aid with the identification of clinically lame animals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Clark et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: