Lameness is a painful disease, which negatively impacts dairy cow production and welfare. The aim of this observational study was to determine herd lameness prevalence, describe current lameness management practices and identify the presence of established risk factors for lameness on Irish pasture-based dairy farms. Farms were visited once during grazing (99 farms) and again during housing (85 farms). Lameness scoring was carried out at each visit (AHDB 0–3 scale); cows were classified as lame if they scored two or three. Farm management practices and infrastructure characteristics were evaluated via farmer questionnaires and direct measurements of farm infrastructure. Median herd-level lameness prevalence was 7.9% (interquartile range = 5.6 – 13.0) during grazing and 9.1% (interquartile range = 4.9 – 12.0) during housing; 10.9% of cows were lame at a single visit and 3.5% were lame at both visits (chronically lame or had a repeat episode of lameness). Fifty-seven percent of farmers were not familiar with lameness scoring and only one farm carried out lameness scoring. Only 22% of farmers kept records of lame cows detected, and 15% had a lameness herd health plan. Twenty-eight percent of farmers waited more than 48 h to treat a lame cow, and 21% waited for more than one cow to be identified as lame before treating. Six percent of farmers carried out routine trimming and 31% regularly footbathed (> 12 times per year). Twelve percent put severely lame cows in a closer paddock and 8% stated that they used pain relief to treat severely lame cows. Over 50% of farms had at least one cow track measurement that was classified as rough or very rough, and cow tracks were commonly narrow for the herd size. On 6% of farms, all cubicle beds were bare concrete (no matting or bedding) and on a further 6% of farms, there was a combination of cubicles with and without matting or bedding. On 56% of farms, all pens contained less than 1.1 cubicles per cow and on 28% of farms, a proportion of pens contained less than 1.1 cubicles per cow. Overall, this study identified infrastructure and management practices which could be improved upon. The comparatively low lameness prevalence demonstrated, compared to fully housed systems, also highlights the benefits of a pasture-based system for animal welfare; however, there remains scope for improvement.

中文翻译：

---

爱尔兰牧场奶牛场的跛行率和管理实践

跛足是一种痛苦的疾病，会对奶牛的生产和福利产生负面影响。这项观察性研究的目的是确定牛群跛行率，描述当前的跛行管理实践，并确定爱尔兰牧场奶牛场存在跛行的既定风险因素。在放牧期间参观了一次农场（99 个农场），在饲养期间再次访问了一次（85 个农场）。每次就诊时进行跛足评分（AHDB 0-3 级）；如果奶牛得分为 2 或 3，则被归类为跛行。通过农民问卷和农场基础设施的直接测量评估农场管理实践和基础设施特征。放牧期间的畜群水平跛行率中位数为 7.9%（四分位距 = 5.6 – 13.0），饲养期间为 9.1%（四分位距 = 4.9 – 12.0）；10. 9% 的奶牛在一次访问中跛足，3.5% 的奶牛在两次访问中都跛足（长期跛行或反复出现跛行）。57% 的农民不熟悉跛足评分，只有一个农场进行了跛足评分。只有 22% 的农民保留了检测到的跛足奶牛的记录，15% 的农民制定了跛足牛群健康计划。28% 的农民等待超过 48 小时来治疗一头瘸腿的奶牛，21% 的农民在治疗前等待超过一头奶牛被确定为瘸腿。6% 的农民进行了例行修剪，31% 的农民定期洗脚（每年 > 12 次）。12% 的人将严重跛足的奶牛放在更近的围场中，8% 的人表示他们使用止痛药来治疗严重跛足的奶牛。超过 50% 的农场至少有一个奶牛轨迹测量值被归类为粗糙或非常粗糙，对于牛群规模来说，母牛的轨道通常很窄。在 6% 的农场中，所有隔间床都是裸露的混凝土（没有垫子或垫料），另外 6% 的农场混合了带和不带垫子或垫料的隔间。在 56% 的农场中，所有围栏中每头奶牛的隔间少于 1.1 个，而在 28% 的农场中，部分围栏中每头奶牛的隔间少于 1.1 个。总体而言，本研究确定了可以改进的基础设施和管理实践。与全圈养系统相比，跛行率相对较低，这也凸显了以牧场为基础的系统对动物福利的好处；但是，仍有改进的余地。有和没有垫子或床上用品的隔间组合。在 56% 的农场中，所有围栏中每头奶牛的隔间少于 1.1 个，而在 28% 的农场中，部分围栏中每头奶牛的隔间少于 1.1 个。总体而言，本研究确定了可以改进的基础设施和管理实践。与全圈养系统相比，跛行率相对较低，这也凸显了以牧场为基础的系统对动物福利的好处；但是，仍有改进的余地。有和没有垫子或床上用品的隔间组合。在 56% 的农场中，所有围栏中每头奶牛的隔间少于 1.1 个，而在 28% 的农场中，部分围栏中每头奶牛的隔间少于 1.1 个。总体而言，本研究确定了可以改进的基础设施和管理实践。与全圈养系统相比，跛行率相对较低，这也凸显了以牧场为基础的系统对动物福利的好处；但是，仍有改进的余地。与全圈养系统相比，跛行率相对较低，这也凸显了以牧场为基础的系统对动物福利的好处；但是，仍有改进的余地。与全圈养系统相比，跛行率相对较低，这也凸显了以牧场为基础的系统对动物福利的好处；但是，仍有改进的余地。