Search

By definition, ill and injured animals are on the negative valence of animal welfare. For beef cattle kept in feedlot settings, advances in cattle health management have resulted in a greater understanding and prevention of illness and injury. However, the management of cattle once they become ill and injured is an understudied area, and there are gaps in knowledge that could inform evidence-based decision-making and strengthen welfare for this population. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the acquired knowledge regarding ill and injured feedlot cattle welfare, focusing on existing knowledge gaps and implications for hospital and chronic pen management and welfare assurance. Ill and injured feedlot cattle consist of acutely impaired animals with short-term health conditions that resolve with treatment and chronically impaired animals with long-term health conditions that may be difficult to treat. A literature search identified 110 articles that mentioned welfare and ill and injured feedlot cattle, but the population of interest in most of these articles was healthy cattle, not ill and injured cattle. Articles about managing ill and injured cattle in specialized hospital (n = 12) or chronic (n = 2) pens were even more sparse. Results from this literature search will be used to outline the understanding of acutely and chronically ill and injured feedlot cattle, including common dispositions and welfare considerations, behavior during convalescence, and strategies for identifying and managing ill and injured cattle. Finally, by working through specific ailments common in commercial feedlot environments, we illustrate how the Five Domains Model can be used to explore feelings and experiences and subsequent welfare state of individual ill or injured feedlot cattle. Using this approach and our knowledge of current industry practices, we identify relevant animal-based outcomes and critical research questions to strengthen knowledge in this area. A better understanding of this overlooked topic will inform future research and the development of evidencebased guidelines to help producers care for this vulnerable population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Therapeutic hoof blocks have been recommended for treatment of sole ulcers in dairy cattle; however, they are underutilized in the industry. Twenty Holstein cows were randomly assigned to receive a wooden hoof block applied to the left hind leg (n = 5), to the right hind leg (n = 5), or no hoof blocks (n = 10). Accelerometers were affixed to both hind legs of 10 blocked cows and 5 control cows. Cows were observed for locomotion scores, and milk production was recorded. Mixed models were constructed to determine effects of block application on behavior, milk production, and locomotion. Activity was altered by day, with cows being most active on Day − 1. The mean number of daily lying bouts and lying bout duration did not differ by treatment. Locomotion scores were higher for blocked cows on Days 1, 2, and 3 compared with baseline; however, milk production did not differ between treatments. In conclusion, although block application affected the appearance of locomotion, it did not appear to adversely affect the behavior or milk production of sound dairy cows. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Compromised dairy cows, such as those suffering from illness or injury, are likely to have different behavioral priorities and needs compared to healthy cows. Although hospital pens are typically required in animal welfare standards and assessment programs, there is surprisingly little information on best practices for housing and management of compromised cows. The purpose of this study was to provide descriptive information about management and husbandry practices of compromised cows on dairy farms in Iowa. A questionnaire-based survey was designed to examine demographic information, design and management of hospital pens, as well as decisions concerning humane endpoints when euthanasia is considered. The survey was sent to 300 Iowa dairy farmers including organic, large (>500 cows) and ordinary (≤500 cows) dairy farms, with overall response rate of 41%. Eighty-two percent of respondents had the possibility to house a sick or injured cow away from her normal pen. Hospital areas typically involved pen housing (89% of farms), and bedded pack was the most common flooring used (88%). Compromised cows were frequently housed in the same enclosure as fresh cows (45%), calving cows (36%), close up cows that are soon to calve (35%), dry cows (15%), or other cattle (8%), including heifers, calves and bulls. Half of the farms had standard management protocols for non-ambulatory cows. Calving difficulties, injury, milk fever, lameness and displaced abomasum were the most frequently cited conditions for moving cows into hospital pens. The present data can be used to formulate hypotheses and design experiments in order to examine relationships between the behavior of compromised cows under different management strategies. Research is needed to formulate recommendations for effective design and management of special needs areas and hospital pens, notably with respect to social groupings and behavioral needs of ill and injured cows. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]