Score 3 was less common and was found for 6.7% of all ears. Of the ears assessed in Study 1, 31.1% showed clinical signs classified as category 2. Both studies were analysed descriptively, and odds ratios ( ORs) for wound lesions in Study 1 were calculated using logistic regression. Calf health, ear tag position, and wound characteristics were assessed during all visits. In Study 2, farmers were interviewed about ear tagging (30 questions), and 10 calves from each farm were assessed on the day of ear tagging and 1, 3, and 6 weeks after tag insertion. Ear tag position (on or between ridges) and wound lesions were evaluated using a three-level scoring system (1 = no blood, scab, or pus discharge 2 = incrustation or scab and slight blood or pus discharge and 3 = heavy purulent discharge, tissue deformation, or both). Study 1 comprised a short interview with the farmer (four questions regarding ear tagging). We conducted one field study with single visits to estimate the prevalence of wound lesions and associated risk factors ( Study 1, 42 farms, 802 calves) and one follow-up study with repeated visits to assess farmers’ view on ear tag management, the relationship between calf health and wound healing, and the development of wound lesions over time ( Study 2, five farms, 42 calves). Therefore, this study sought to estimate the prevalence of wound lesions and identify associated risk factors by assessing ear tagging management in unweaned dairy calves. The wound healing process and prevalence of wound lesions in calves remain mostly unknown. However, studies indicate that ear tagging causes pain-associated physiological and behavioural responses. Identification of cattle by ear tagging is legally required to ensure traceability.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |