Deviation of behavioural and productive parameters in dairy cows due to a lameness event: a synthesis of reviews

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the comparison lame versus nonlame dairy cows for the five parameters considered for the meta-analysis (data from the 31 selected research papers).

Parameter (units)	Study^a	Health status (mean ± SD)		Cows (n)		p-Value^b
		Lame	Nonlame	Lame	Nonlame
Eating time (min/day)	Bach et al. (2007)	240 ± 125	268 ± 213	38	111	<0.0500
	Beer et al. (2016)	302 ± 57	379 ± 71	41	12	0.0003
	Cook et al. (2004)	259 ± 66	259 ± 290	10	73	ns
	Gomez and Cook (2010)	227 ± 64	270 ± 55	35	104	0.0500
	Kramer et al. (2009)	171 ± 46	196 ± 48	17	17	NA
	Miguel-Pacheco et al. (2014)	192 ± 20	264 ± 17	110	40	NA
	Norring et al. (2014)	91 ± 17	104 ± 32	19	40	<0.0500
	Proudfoot et al. (2010)	213 ± 32	228 ± 32	13	13	ns
	Thorup et al. (2016)	119 ± 52	197 ± 54	9	7	0.0040
Lying bout duration (min/bout)	Beer et al. (2016)	92 ± 31	72 ± 18	41	12	0.0360
	Calderon and Cook (2011)	54.0 ± 3.6	45.1 ± 2.5	39	18	<0.0500
	Chapinal et al. (2009)	93.3 ± 21.3	71.0 ± 21.3	13	9	<0.0500
	Chapinal et al. (2010)	94.0 ± 24.5	78.2 ± 29.0	25	25	0.0300
	Ito et al. (2010)I	83.1 ± 38.8	80.2 ± 58.5	129	397	ns
	Ito et al. (2010)II	76.8 ± 44.1	74.2 ± 56.6	247	546	ns
	King et al. (2017)	87.6 ± 30.5	79.0 ± 25.8	352	857	0.0300
	Solano et al. (2016)	69 ± 32	61 ± 27	1073	4062	<0.0500
	Thomsen et al. (2012)	99.1 ± 62.0	59.9 ± 25.7	42	508	<0.0500
	Weigele et al. (2018)	89.9 ± 29.8	81.9 ± 26.5	111	253	0.0080
	Westin et al. (2016)	78.3 ± 31.1	70.7 ± 52.8	192	113	<0.0010
	Yunta et al. (2012)	89.3 ± 43.5	80.7 ± 43.6	125	125	<0.0500
Lying bouts (n/day)	Beer et al. (2016)	9.5 ± 3.4	9.8 ± 1.6	41	12	ns
	Calderon and Cook (2011)	16.6 ± 3.8	14.2 ± 2.5	39	18	ns
	Chapinal et al. (2009)	9.2 ± 1.8	10.9 ± 2.1	13	9	ns
	Chapinal et al. (2010)	8.2 ± 2	8.1 ± 2	25	25	ns
	Cook et al. (2004)	7.2 ± 4.1	10.8 ± 4.0	10	73	ns
	Gomez and Cook (2010)	10.9 ± 5.4	13.2 ± 4.8	35	104	ns
	Ito et al. (2010)I	8.0 ± 4.6	8.1 ± 7.6	129	397	ns
	Ito et al. (2010)II	8.6 ± 4.8	8.5 ± 6.0	247	546	ns
	King et al. (2017)	9.3 ± 3.8	9.3 ± 2.9	352	857	ns
	Solano et al. (2016)	9.7 ± 4.7	10.2 ± 4.5	1073	4062	<0.0500
	Westin et al. (2016)	9.3 ± 4.2	9.9 ± 7.7	192	1113	0.0200
	Yunta et al. (2012)	9.4 ± 5.5	9.8 ± 5.5	125	125	ns
Lying time (min/day)	Beer et al. (2016)	784 ± 131	680 ± 74	41	12	<0.0500
	Blackie et al. (2011)	666 ± 264	540 ± 334	5	8	<0.0500
	Calderon and Cook (2011)	831 ± 172	683 ± 97	39	18	<0.05
	Chapinal et al. (2009)	828 ± 105	756 ± 105	13	9	<0.0500
	Chapinal et al. (2010)	666 ± 120	618 ± 90	25	25	ns
	Charlton et al. (2016)	738 ± 160	746 ± 126	876	2773	ns
	Cook et al. (2004)	585 ± 111	714 ± 282	10	73	ns
	Gomez and Cook (2010)	650 ± 470	724 ± 467	35	104	<0.0500
	Ito et al. (2010)I	696 ± 509	672 ± 366	129	397	ns
	Ito et al. (2010)II	672 ± 217	654 ± 286	247	546	0.0500
	King et al. (2017)	727 ± 165	676 ± 129	352	857	<0.0010
	Thorup et al. (2015)	724 ± 166	684 ± 180	164	325	<0.050
	Solano et al. (2016)	666 ± 168	630 ± 162	1073	4062	<0.0500
	Thomsen et al. (2012)	766 ± 177	631 ± 128	42	508	<0.0500
	Westin et al. (2016)	714 ± 212	678 ± 357	192	1113	0.0010
	Yunta et al. (2012)	728 ± 271	714 ± 271	125	125	ns
Milk yield (kg/day)	Bach et al. (2007)	28.3 ± 6.3	30.7 ± 10.9	38	111	<0.0500
	Beer et al. (2016)	39.8 ± 7.6	47.1 ± 8.0	41	12	0.0050
	Bicalho et al. (2008)I	36.1 ± 5.2	37.5 ± 5.2	603	603	<0.0010
	Bicalho et al. (2008)II	35.1 ± 5.8	36.1 ± 5.8	846	2777	<0.0010
	Gudaj et al. (2012)	28.6 ± 8.6	32.9 ± 8.7	826	826	<0.0500
	Hernandez et al. (2005)	37.8 ± 6.6	38.8 ± 5.8	169	84	<0.0500
	Juarez et al. (2003)I	41.3 ± 27.3	46.8 ± 56.1	23	97	ns
	Juarez et al. (2003)II	38.1 ± 52.4	41.9 ± 73.7	74	146	ns
	King et al. (2017)	34.1 ± 1.0	34.9 ± 9.8	352	857	<0.0010
	Kramer et al. (2009)	39.6 ± 7.4	41.2 ± 7.9	17	17	NA
	Machado et al. (2010)	43.5 ± 5.4	44.1 ± 18	140	433	ns
	Mandel et al. (2018)	32.9 ± 8.1	37.1 ± 24.7	10	154	<0.0500
	Nechanitzky et al. (2016)	33.9 ± 7.3	36.6 ± 7.0	32	10	ns
	Norring et al. (2014)	35.3 ± 4.4	35.9 ± 4.8	19	65	ns
	Proudfoot et al. (2010)	42.9	41.9	13	13	ns
	Solano et al. (2015)	36.8 ± 9.7	37.4 ± 9.2	1094	4162	<0.0010
	Solano et al. (2016)	36 ± 10	37 ± 9	1073	4062	<0.0500
	Thorup et al. (2016)	25.9 ± 7.3	18.8 ± 7.5	9	7	ns
	Van Hertem et al. (2013)	37.7 ± 3.3	45.1 ± 4.3	44	74	<0.0010
	Yunta et al. (2012)	29.2 ± 8.7	30.8 ± 8.7	125	125	ns

^aDifferent Roman numerals I, II indicate different sample sizes within the same study.

^bNA: not assessed; ns: not significant.

Figure 1. Forest plots of the five considered parameters: (a) eating time (min/day); (b) lying bout duration (min/bout); (c) lying bouts (n/day); (d) lying time (min/day); (e) milk yield (kg/day). The blue boxes represent the relative contribution of each study to the summary pooled standardised mean difference (SMD). The pooled SMD value was represented using a light blue diamond that fixes the location of the estimated effect and which width reflects the estimate’s precision.

Figure 2. Pooled standardised mean difference (pooled SMD) with 95% confidence intervals of the five parameters considered for the comparison lame versus nonlame dairy cows. Negative values are represented by red bars and positive values by green bars in the histogram.

Table 2. Meta-analysis results of the effect of lameness on behavioural parameters and milk production.

	Trial comparison		Pooled mean (95% CI)			SMD^a		Heterogeneity^b		F test^c
Item	studies (n)	cows (n)	Lame	Nonlame	Lame versus Nonlame	95% CI	p-Value	I^2 %	p-Value
Eating time (min/day)	9	734	200 (149–252)	239 (182–297)	−0.95	[−1.7; −0.2]	0.013	94	<0.001	0.603
Lying bout duration (min/bout)	12	10314	83 (75–91)	71 (64–78)	0.57	[0.19; 0.95]	0.003	89	<0.001	0.115
Lying bouts (n/day)	12	9622	9.7 (8.2–11.2)	10.2 (9.0–11.4)	−0.07	[−0.13; −0.01]	0.019	53	0.016	0.758
Lying time (min/day)	16	14323	720 (686–754)	678 (656–700)	0.25	[0.07; 0.42]	0.006	85	<0.001	0.252
Milk yield (kg/day)	19	20157	34.1 (32.8–37.3)	37.1 (34.1–40.2)	−0.26	[−0.45; −0.08]	0.006	86	<0.001	0.347

^aSMD is the standardised mean difference of the lameness effect.

^bI² is the proportion of total variation of size effect due to heterogeneity; p-value of chi-square (Q) test of heterogeneity.

^cp-value of the Funnel (F) test asymmetry (Egger’s regression asymmetry test).

Bach A, Dinarés M, Devant M, Carré X. 2007. Associations between lameness and production, feeding and milking attendance of Holstein cows milked with an automatic milking system. J Dairy Res. 74(1):40–46. doi: 10.1017/S0022029906002184.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Beer G, Alsaaod M, Starke A, Schuepbach-Regula G, Müller H, Kohler P, Steiner A. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS One. 11(5):e0218546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155796.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cook NB, Bennett TB, Nordlund KV. 2004. Effect of free stall surface on daily activity patterns in dairy cows with relevance to lameness prevalence. J Dairy Sci. 87(9):2912–2922. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73422-0.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gomez A, Cook NB. 2010. Time budgets of lactating dairy cattle in commercial freestall herds. J Dairy Sci. 93(12):5772–5781. doi: 10.3168/jds.2010-3436.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kramer E, Cavero D, Stamer E, Krieter J. 2009. Mastitis and lameness detection in dairy cows by application of fuzzy logic. Livest Sci. 125(1):92–96. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2009.02.020.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Miguel-Pacheco GG, Kaler J, Remnant J, Cheyne L, Abbott C, French AP, Pridmore TP, Huxley JN. 2014. Behavioural changes in dairy cows with lameness in an automatic milking system. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 150:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.11.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Norring M, Häggman J, Simojoki H, Tamminen P, Winckler C, Pastell M. 2014. Short communication: lameness impairs feeding behavior of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 97(7):4317–4321. doi: 10.3168/jds.2013-7512.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Proudfoot KL, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk MA. 2010. Behavior during transition differs for cows diagnosed with claw horn lesions in mid lactation. J Dairy Sci. 93(9):3970–3978. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2767.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Thorup VM, Nielsen BL, Robert PE, Giger-Reverdin S, Konka J, Michie C, Friggens NC. 2016. Lameness affects cow feeding but not rumination behavior as characterized from sensor data. Front Vet Sci. 3:37. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2016.00037.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Calderon DF, Cook NB. 2011. The effect of lameness on the resting behavior and metabolic status of dairy cattle during the transition period in a freestall − housed dairy herd. J Dairy Sci. 94(6):2883–2894. doi: 10.3168/jds.2010-3855.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chapinal N, de Passillé AM, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk MAG, Rushen J. 2009. Using gait score, walking speed, and lying behavior to detect hoof lesions in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 92(9):4365–4374. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2115.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chapinal N, de Passillé AM, Rushen J, Wagner S. 2010. Automated methods for detecting lameness and measuring analgesia in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 93(12):5758–5763. doi: 10.3168/jds.2010-3426.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Ito K, Von Keyserlingk MAG, Leblanc SJ, Weary DM. 2010. Lying behavior as an indicator of lameness in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 93(8):3553–3560. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2951.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

King MTM, LeBlanc SJ, Pajor EA, DeVries TJ. 2017. Cow-level associations of lameness, behavior, and milk yield of cows milked in automated systems. J Dairy Sci. 100(6):4818–4828. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-12281.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Solano L, Barkema HW, Pajor EA, Mason S, LeBlanc SJ, Nash CGR, Haley DB, Pellerin D, Rushen J, de Passillé AM, et al. 2016. Associations between lying behavior and lameness in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in freestall barns. J Dairy Sci. 99(3):2086–2101. doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-10336.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Thomsen PT, Munksgaard L, Sørensen JT. 2012. Locomotion scores and lying behaviour are indicators of hoof lesions in dairy cows. Vet J. 193(3):644–647. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.06.046.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Weigele HC, Gygax L, Steiner A, Wechsler B, Burla JB. 2018. Moderate lameness leads to marked behavioral changes in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 101(3):2370–2382. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13120.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Westin R, Vaughan A, de Passillé AM, DeVries TJ, Pajor EA, Pellerin D, Siegford JM, Vasseur E, Rushen J. 2016. Lying times of lactating cows on dairy farms with automatic milking systems and the relation to lameness, leg lesions, and body condition score. J Dairy Sci. 99(1):551–561. doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-9737.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yunta C, Guasch I, Bach A. 2012. Short communication: lying behavior of lactating dairy cows is influenced by lameness especially around feeding time. J Dairy Sci. 95(11):6546–6549. doi: 10.3168/jds.2012-5670.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Blackie N, Bleach E, Amory J, Scaife J. 2011. Impact of lameness on gait characteristics and lying behaviour of zero grazed dairy cattle in early lactation. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 129(2–4):67–73. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2010.10.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Charlton GL, Bouffard V, Gibbons JM, Vasseur E, Haley DB, Pellerin D, Rushen J, de Passillé AM. 2016. Can automated measures of lying time help assess lameness and leg lesions on tie-stall dairy farms? Appl Anim Behav Sci. 175:14–22. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.02.011.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Thorup VM, Munksgaard L, Robert PE, Erhard HW, Thomsen PT, Friggens NC. 2015. Lameness detection via leg-mounted accelerometers on dairy cows on four commercial farms. Animal 9(10):1704–1712. doi: 10.1017/S1751731115000890.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bicalho RC, Warnick LD, Guard CL. 2008. Strategies to analyze milk losses caused by diseases with potential incidence throughout the lactation: a lameness example. J Dairy Sci. 91(7):2653–2661. doi: 10.3168/jds.2007-0744.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gudaj R, Brydl E, Posta J, István K. 2012. Effect of lameness on milk production in Holstein-Friesian farms in Hungary. Állattenyésztés Takarmányozás. 61:66–77.

 Google Scholar

Hernandez JA, Garbarino EJ, Shearer JK, Risco CA, Thatcher WW. 2005. Comparison of milk yield in dairy cows with different degrees of lameness. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 227(8):1292–1296. doi: 10.2460/javma.2005.227.1292.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Juarez ST, Robinson PH, DePeters EJ, Price EO. 2003. Impact of lameness on behavior and productivity of lactating Holstein cows. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 83(1):1–14. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00107-2.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Machado VS, Caixeta LS, McArt JA, Bicalho RC. 2010. The effect of claw horn disruption lesions and body condition score at dry-off on survivability, reproductive performance, and milk production in the subsequent lactation. J Dairy Sci. 93(9):4071–4078. doi: 10.3168/jds.2010-3177.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mandel R, Harazy H, Gygax L, Nicol CJ, Ben-David A, Whay HR, Klement E. 2018. Short communication: detection of lameness in dairy cows using a grooming device. J Dairy Sci. 101(2):1511–1517. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13207.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nechanitzky K, Starke A, Vidondo B, Müller H, Reckardt M, Friedli K, Steiner A. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J Dairy Sci. 99(4):2904–2914. doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-10109.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Solano L, Barkema HW, Pajor EA, Mason S, LeBlanc SJ, Zaffino Heyerhoff JC, Nash CGR, Haley DB, Vasseur E, Pellerin D, et al. 2015. Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in freestall barns. J Dairy Sci. 98(10):6978–6991. doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-9652.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Van Hertem T, Maltz E, Antler A, Romanini CE, Viazzi S, Bahr C, Schlageter-Tello A, Lokhorst C, Berckmans D, Halachmi I. 2013. Lameness detection based on multivariate continuous sensing of milk yield, rumination, and neck activity. J Dairy Sci. 96(7):4286–4298. doi: 10.3168/jds.2012-6188.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Cozzi G., upon reasonable request.