Lameness in beef cattle – do we know what we don’t know?

It is Friday afternoon and you get a telephone call to visit one of your beef herds about 30 minutes from the practice. The receptionist tells you the herd has a lame animal or two.

After a quick stop at the practice en route to sharpen your knives, you spend the rest of the journey hoping the farm had fixed the crush that fell apart when you pregnancy diagnosed some cows last year.

On arrival, the farmer surprises you by waving a sheet of numbers – asking whether it was normal to have so much lameness, and the types of lameness other beef farms were seeing.

As vets and industry bodies, we have been encouraging data recording for a while, but do we know what to do with it when we get it? Are we prepared for these questions? Do we know the answers? If we did know the answers, would this fix the problem?

The majority of the lameness research in the UK and internationally is focused on the dairy sector. While this is useful for approaching a beef lameness issue with its limited evidence base, if we could supplement it with beef system-specific evidence, it would enhance the support and advice we could provide.

Is it normal, and do I have a problem?

While it could be argued having any lameness is a problem, achieving 0% lameness may be unrealistic. To make a judgement on the situation, some benchmark figures would be useful.

A small number of international and small study figures are the best available, bearing in mind the limitations due to husbandry and environmental differences. Terrel et al (2017) identified lameness incidences of 1.04 cases per 100 animal years in US feedlots¹, whereas Griffin et al (1993) used treatment records to identify that 2.1% of animals in US feedlots received treatment for lameness².

A study of 10 US auction markets identified more than 15% of beef cows and bulls were lame³; while a Californian study identified a beef cow lameness level prevalence of 1.3%, but this did vary from 0% to 7.1% between farms⁴.

Closer to home, an Italian study identified varying lameness prevalences on different beef-rearing farms, ranging from 1.9% to 6%⁵. However, a Norwegian study observing 12 suckler herds found 1.1% of cows studied were lame⁶.

UK anecdotal reports have suggested a higher prevalence in both finishing cattle and suckler cow herds.

What is the problem, and what are other people seeing?

Although beef cattle lesion prevalence in the UK is largely unknown, some work has looked at digital dermatitis (DD).

It has been reported in UK beef cattle, and appears to be bacteriologically similar to that in dairy cattle and contagious ovine digital dermatitis in sheep⁷. However, UK prevalence has not been reported so far.

Internationally, the Norwegian study of suckler cows reported infectious cases (heel horn erosion and DD) in 16.6% of cattle and claw horn disorders (sole ulcers or haemorrhage, white line disease and double soles) in 18% of cattle (many of which were not lame)⁶.

A US study of beef cattle presented with lameness or for hoof trimming to a university teaching hospital identified 85% of cases had a foot lesion and 15% a lesion higher in the leg or in the spine⁸. Of the foot problems, 80% were identified as having a non-infectious aetiology – with corkscrew claws being most common – followed by vertical fissures, sole ulcers and interdigital fibromas. Infectious causes were responsible for 14%, with DD being most common.

A slaughterhouse study examining limbs of finishing cattle in northern Italy found heel horn erosion was the most common infectious lesion, followed by interdigital dermatitis and DD⁹. When DD was found, it was present in most feet from the batch of cattle from the same farm. Of horn lesions, sole haemorrhage was present in at least one animal in almost all batches (mean animals monitored per batch = 14), whereas white line disease was present in 55% of batches and sole ulcers were present in 22% of batches⁹.

Non-foot problems should be considered in beef animals – various joint and ligament issues, as well as a range of fractured bones and some unidentified traumatic leg injuries, were seen by Newcomer et al (2016)⁸. Joint lesions were also common in a number of breeding bulls slaughtered in a Swedish study¹⁰.

Where is the lameness coming from, and what is causing it?

It is fair to assume lameness in beef cattle will be multifactorial, like in dairy cattle and other species.

Many risk factors will overlap with the dairy industry, but identifying factors specific to the beef industry and the particular farm will be key to dealing with – and preventing – the problem.

Biosecurity

Biosecurity will be important for infectious causes, especially as reports have suggested DD may be less widespread in the beef sector than in both the dairy and sheep sectors. This means moving animals between farms – or sharing yards, facilities or equipment with sheep, dairy or other beef cattle – is likely to increase the risk.

Those buying cattle to rear or finish may find that they are at higher risk of bringing in DD.

Nutrition

Disagreement exists over the exact mechanisms in which diet affects lameness risk. However, most will agree an element of nutritional issues exists.

Ruminal acidosis is thought to have the potential to cause endotoxin and/or histamine release, and abnormal blood flow in the hoof, resulting in blood pooling and negative effects on the laminae and papillae, as well as poor horn formation.

Pedal bone (P3) attachment may also be affected and subsequent trauma may occur, depending on which way the bone rotates or sinks.

This coriosis/laminitis may be seen where a diet is changed too quickly, feed is improperly formulated or mixed, or when feed bunks are left empty, leading to gorging when feed does become available. A shift towards finishing on total mixed rations may reduce this risk.

Minerals can be important for immunity, skin health and hoof horn integrity. For example, a number of case reports have been published on outbreaks of osteochondrosis in growing/finishing cattle following incorrect calcium/phosphorus ratios, sometimes combined with other insufficient mineral and vitamin supplementation.

Suckler cows in poor body condition are likely to have thinner digital cushions, which has been associated with a higher risk of claw horn lesions¹¹. This may be particularly relevant in systems where cows are allowed to lose body condition over winter.

Season

Spring was identified as a higher risk period in Italian finishing cattle5 – possibly because of increasing temperatures supporting bacterial growth, and still sufficiently damp underfoot conditions to cause hoof weakening.

Environment

The wide variety of both housing and grazing systems for beef cattle means risks between farms will vary.

Concrete and other hard flooring surfaces are likely to affect lameness risk, and flooring that is too abrasive or provides insufficient grip will increase the risk. Equally, animals introduced to hard flooring too suddenly will increase the risk.

Damaged flooring is likely to increase forces on the feet and may facilitate infectious lesions through skin trauma. Uncomfortable lying areas may lead to increased standing times.

Slatted flooring is used for some beef cattle. Cattle housed on slatted rubber mats have shown reduced locomotion scores compared to cattle on concrete slats in one study¹² – contradicting a study by Keane et al (2015) in Ireland that showed bulls on rubber slats had significantly more hoof lesions, but no increase in lameness compared to bulls on concrete slats¹³.

A meta-analysis of flooring systems for finishing cattle concluded that – from the evidence available – performance, lying time and animal cleanliness was unaffected by the flooring system (concrete slats, rubber matting or straw bedding)¹⁴.

Damp conditions with pooling water or slurry are likely to reduce horn quality and potentially provide an environment for infectious agents to thrive, so can increase the risk of lameness.

Handling

Handling can be a high-risk time for lameness. Poorly designed facilities or inappropriate handling technique can lead to cattle slipping, tripping and collisions (with other animals, gates, walls and parts of the crush). These lead to increased forces through the feet, as well as muscular skeletal injuries and stress.

Animal factors

In the aforementioned Italian study of finishing cattle, animals that were heavier on arrival at finishing units were at an increased risk of lameness⁵. Males had a higher incidence of lameness, which could be due to a difference in behaviour or temperament, or diet between males and females.

The same study showed a higher risk of lameness for Charolais cattle compared to Limousin cattle or cross-breeds. This could be due to the bodyweight, conformation or feed intake of Charolais compared to others, or a feature of the Italian beef industry leading to Charolais cattle being reared in different environments before moving to finishing units.

What effect is lameness having on my cattle?

In keeping with the aforementioned, minimal evidence exists about the impact of lameness. The effect on welfare is acknowledged by most, but relies on the animal being appreciated as lame – rather than as just “not quite walking right” – so that the pain and effect on welfare are recognised.

The study by Griffin et al (1993) showed lameness accounted for 5% of all deaths on feedlots, and lame animals that were salvaged and slaughtered only reached 53% of their original purchase price².

While no studies exist to support this, it would be fair to expect lameness to negatively affect the fertility of both beef cows and bulls, with consequences for calving intervals and maintaining tight calving periods. It is also likely that calf growth in utero may be reduced, and milk production and young calf growth rates may be impacted.

US slaughter audits have shown carcase losses due to lameness across the cattle sectors¹⁵. Arthritic joints required removal, meaning a loss of meat yield. Bruising and reduced muscling was present, some of which was likely to be attributable to lameness.

What next?

With the beef evidence, limited though it is, we can supplement the dairy evidence already in our armoury.

However, we need to bear in mind farmers’ perceptions while considering an action plan. Are their objectives the same as ours? Do they have the facilities to achieve what we may want them to do? Do they have the knowledge and skills to do what we may want them to do?

Does knowing the answer fix the problem?

How many times have you been frustrated because you have told someone how to solve a problem, but he or she has not done it?

Taking the time to understand the problem from a farmer’s point of view can help us to help him or her. A 2019 study by the authors identified some important factors to consider when supporting farmers to improve lameness within their beef cattle¹⁶.

1. Recognition of lame animals

Beef farmers must be capable and have the opportunity to identify all lame animals, and must consider them as lame to ensure they receive the appropriate attention.

2. Farmer training

Lesion recognition was identified as a problem, with some beef farmers unaware of what some of the common conditions were – making it difficult to identify causes and prevention strategies.

A real opportunity exists to provide beneficial training to improve the performance and welfare of cattle on beef farms. How much training is your practice currently offering to your beef clients?

3. Contraindicated treatments

The study identified some farmers were using treatments that were likely to make lameness considerably worse, as well as being a concern for welfare.

We have a responsibility, via herd health plans and visits, to ensure we support beef farmers to know how to treat common conditions, and know when to ask for support.

It is essential vets are proactive in their approach to tackling lameness and reaching out to beef farmers.

4. Transport and slaughter

The study identified contrasting opinions and experiences with transport and slaughter of lame animals, with some farmers seeing it as a “grey area”.

Consistency and clarity will help farmers develop robust protocols for lame animals, enabling appropriate and efficient decision-making.

Conclusion

It is clear a need exists for evidence to support decision-making on UK beef units. While some useful information is available from around the world, UK-based data would provide a more robust and specific evidence base.

The authors are working to establish a baseline of information regarding lameness in UK beef cattle. This will include identifying the prevalence of lameness in beef cattle, as well as investigating lesion prevalence and risk factors for lameness.

It will also look further at beef farmers’ perceptions of lameness, and investigate the effects of lameness on weight gain and carcase classification in finishing cattle.