↓ Skip to main content

Slightly and Moderately Lame Cows in Tie Stalls Behave Differently From Non-lame Controls. A Matched Case-Control Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, December 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Slightly and Moderately Lame Cows in Tie Stalls Behave Differently From Non-lame Controls. A Matched Case-Control Study
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, December 2020
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2020.594825
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johanna Karin Bernhard, Beatriz Vidondo, Rahel Lisa Achermann, Rahel Rediger, Dimitri Stucki, Kerstin Elisabeth Müller, Adrian Steiner

Abstract

Lameness affects dairy cows worldwide and is usually associated with pain. Behavioral differences in lame compared to non-lame tie-stall-housed dairy cows might be less pronounced than in free-stall-housed, since the principle demands to a cow's locomotor system and thus the impact of lameness on behavior seem to be lower in tie stalls. Behavioral differences between lame and non-lame cows might be used to estimate the impact of lameness on the well-being of tied dairy cows. In the current study, lame cows were categorized as locomotion scoring between 2.25 and 3.25 on a 1-5 scale. The aim was to compare the eating, rumination and lying behavior of lame cows against non-lame tied dairy cows, in order to draw conclusions on the association of lameness, behavior and well-being in tied dairy cows. The eating and rumination behavior of 26, the lying behavior of 30, and the relative upright and lying activities of 25 matched case-control pairs were analyzed, considering the matching criteria farm, breed-type, and parity-group. Lame cows had fewer [mean of the pairwise differences (case-control) (meandiff) = -2.6 bouts, CI95% (-3.8--1.4) bouts, p = 0.001], but longer lying bouts [meandiff = 26.7 min per bout, CI95% (10.1-43.4) min per bout, p = 0.006]. The lying time was shorter [meandiff = -64.7 min, CI95% (-104.4--24.9) min, p = 0.006] in lame cows compared to their non-lame controls. Lame cows had a shorter eating time [meandiff = -27.7 min, CI95% (-51.5--4.0) min, p = 0.042] and spent a larger proportion of their upright time ruminating [meandiff = 7.2%, CI95% (3.2-11.1)%, p = 0.001] instead of eating. The results of the current study indicate that the eating, rumination, and lying behavior of lame tied dairy cows is altered. These findings indicate that slight and moderate lameness (locomotion score between 2.25 and 3.25 on a 1-5 scale) are likely to be associated with an impaired well-being in affected tied dairy cows. This underlines the need to continuously reduce the lameness prevalence and severity in tied dairy herds.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Unspecified 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 19%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 14%
Unspecified 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 8 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 January 2021.
All research outputs
#14,531,044
of 23,269,984 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#2,366
of 6,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,999
of 475,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#144
of 400 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,269,984 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,496 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 475,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 400 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.