Prevalence and lameness-associated risk factors in Alberta feedlot cattle
Open accessAbstract
Lameness in cattle is a health and welfare concern; however, limited information is available on risk factors and the relationship between lameness and common diseases like bovine respiratory disease (BRD). Therefore, the objectives of this study were to: 1) identify prevalence of lameness in feedlot cattle and related risk factors of cattle diagnosed as lame; and 2) determine associations between BRD occurrence and lameness. Feedlot cattle health records were available from 28 feedlots for 10 yr. The data set consisted of 663,838 cattle records, with 13.9% (92,156) diagnosed with a disease, including 32.3%, 46.0%, and 22.0% with lameness, BRD, and other diagnoses, respectively. Lameness was classified into four categories: foot rot (FR), joint infections (JI), lame with no visible swelling (LNVS), and injuries (INJ), with a prevalence of 74.5%, 16.1%, 6.1%, and 3.1%, respectively. Lameness was compared across cattle types (arrival date and weight) as well as age classification (calf vs. yearling), gender (steer vs. heifer), and season of placement in the feedlot (spring, summer, fall, and winter). Within the disease-diagnosed population, lameness represented 28.5% of treated fall-placed calves, 38.5% of winter-placed calves, and 40.8% of treated yearlings. Foot rot was the most common diagnosis with 74.5% of all lameness diagnoses, with winter- and fall-placed calves more likely to be diagnosed with FR compared to yearlings (OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.10–1.30 and OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.38–1.55, respectively). Joint infections were the second most common diagnosis (16.1%). Compared to yearlings, fall-placed calves had a higher odds (OR: 3.64, 95% CI: 3.12–4.24) for JI. Injuries and LNVS were the least common but again fall-placed calves had higher odds of this diagnosis compared to yearlings (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.70–2.99 and OR: 9.10, 95% CI: 6.26–13.2, respectively). Gender was significantly different for JI as steers were less likely affected compared to heifers (OR: 0.687, 95% CI: 0.545–0.867), and more likely affected by LNVS (OR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.57–3.84). Of all lameness-associated deaths, JI accounted for almost 50%. Finally, cattle diagnosed with BRD were subsequently more likely to be diagnosed with INJ, JI, or LNVS (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). In conclusion, animal type and gender were associated with type of lameness diagnoses, allowing feedlots to allocate resources to groups at highest risk and focus on early intervention strategies.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Initial observations indicated that when BRD was present alongside lameness as a secondary condition, the likelihood of all four specific lameness diagnoses-foot rot, joint infections, lameness without visible swelling, and injuries-remained unchanged.
“Notably, initial observations indicated that when BRD was present alongside lameness as a secondary condition, the likelihood of all four specific lameness diagnoses—foot rot, joint infections, lameness without visible swelling, and injuries—remained unchanged.”
From Strategies for Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD) Diagnosis and Prognosis: A Comprehensive Overview (2024) · cites this paper as [110]
The Discussion (Association between Lameness and BRD Diagnosis; page unavailable) says that when BRD came first, there was “no reduction in the odds for all four lameness diagnoses.” That does not establish that their likelihoods remained unchanged: the Abstract reports that injury, joint infection, and lameness without visible swelling were subsequently more likely after BRD. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThis finding suggests that behavioral alterations and potential immunosuppression associated with BRD do not necessarily correlate with an elevated risk of lameness.
“This finding suggests that the behavioral alterations and potential immunosuppression associated with BRD do not necessarily correlate with an elevated risk of lameness [110].”
From Strategies for Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD) Diagnosis and Prognosis: A Comprehensive Overview (2024) · cites this paper as [110]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Caswell J. L., Bateman K. G., Cai H. Y., and Castillo-Alcala F. 2010 Mycoplasma bovis in respiratory disease of feedlot cattle. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 26: 365– 379. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2012.07.004 20619190 · DOI
- Desrochers A., Anderson D. E., and St-Jean G. 2001 Lameness examination in cattle. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 17: 39– 51. 11320698
- Gyan L. A., Paetsch C. D., Jelinski M. D., and Allen A. L. 2015 The lesions of toe tip necrosis in southern Alberta feedlot cattle provide insight into the pathogenesis of the disease. Can. Vet. J. 56: 1134– 1139. 26538666 PMC4608464
- Haines D. M., Martin K. M., Clark E. G., Jim G. K., and Janzen E. D. 2001 The immunohistochemical detection of Mycoplasma bovis and bovine viral diarrhea virus in tissues of feedlot cattle with chronic, unresponsive respiratory disease and/or arthritis. Can. Vet. J. 42: 857– 860. 11708203 PMC1476660
- Hodgins D. C., Conlon J. A., and Shewen P. E. 2002 Respiratory viruses and bacteria in cattle. In: Brogden K. A., and Guthmiller J. M., editors. Polymicrobial diseases. Washington (DC): ASM Press pp. 213– 229. 21735561
- Jelinski M., Fenton K., Perrett T., and Paetsch C. 2016 Epidemiology of toe tip necrosis syndrome (TTNS) of North American feedlot cattle. Can. Vet. J. 57: 829– 834. 27493280 PMC4944558
- Marti S., Janzen E. D., Orsel K., Jelinski M. J., Dorin L. C., Pajor E., Shearer J. K., Millman S. T., Coetzee J. F., Thomson D. U., et al 2016 Risk factors associated with lameness severity in feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 94(Suppl. 5): 38– 39. doi: 10.2527/jam2016-008326812310 · DOI
- Maunsell F. P., Woolums A. R., Francoz D., Rosenbusch R. F., Step D. L., Wilson D. J., and Janzen E. D. 2011 Mycoplasma bovis infections in cattle. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 25: 772– 783. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2011.0750.x 21745245 · DOI
- Miskimins D. W 1994 Bovine toe abscesses. Proceedings. 8th International Symposium on Disorders of the Ruminant Digit; Banff, Alberta. p. 54– 57.
- Newcomer B. W., and Chamorro M. F. 2016 Distribution of lameness lesions in beef cattle: a retrospective analysis of 745 cases. Can. Vet. J. 57: 401– 406. 27041758 PMC4790232
- Noffsinger T., Lukasiewicz K., and Hyder L. 2015 Feedlot processing and arrival cattle management. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 31: 323– 40. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2015.06.002 26211440 · DOI
- Orsel K., Plummer P., Shearer J., De Buck J., Carter S. D., Guatteo R., and Barkema H. W. 2017 Missing pieces of the puzzle to effectively control digital dermatitis. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 65(Suppl. 1): 186– 198. doi: 10.1111/tbed.12729 29124910 · DOI
- Stokka G. L., Lechtenberg K., Edwards T., MacGregor S., Voss K., Griffin D., Grotelueschen D. M., Smith R. A., and Perino L. J. 2001 Lameness in feedlot cattle. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 17: 189– 207. 11320695
- Taylor J. D., Fulton R. W., Lehenbauer T. W., Step D. L., and Confer A. W. 2010 The epidemiology of bovine respiratory disease: what is the evidence for predisposing factors? Can. Vet. J. 51: 1095– 1102. 21197200 PMC2942046
- Terrell S. P., Reinhardt C. D., Larson C. K., Vahl C. I., and Thomson D. U. 2017 Incidence of lameness and association of cause and severity of lameness on the outcome for cattle on six commercial beef feedlots. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 250: 437– 445. doi: 10.2460/javma.250.4.437 28165312 · DOI
- Van Metre D. C., Wenz J. R., and Garry F. B. 2005 Lameness in cattle: rules of thumb. Proceedings. 38th Annual Conference of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners; Salt Lake City, UT. p. 40– 43.
- Wells S. J., Trent A. M., Marsh W. E., McGovern P. G., and Robinson R. A. 1993 Individual cow risk factors for clinical lameness in lactating dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 17: 95– 109. doi: 10.1016/0167-5877(93)90059-3 · DOI
- White B. J., Anderson D. E., Renter D. G., Larson R. L., Mosier D. A., Kelly L. L., Theurer M. E., Robért B. D., and Walz M. L. 2012 Clinical, behavioral, and pulmonary changes in calves following inoculation with Mycoplasma bovis. Am. J. Vet. Res. 73: 490– 497. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.73.4.490 22452495 · DOI · Paper page
- Wilson-Welder J. H., Alt D. P., and Nally J. E. 2015 Digital dermatitis in cattle: current bacterial and immunological findings. Animals 5: 1114– 1135. doi: 10.3390/ani5040400 26569318 PMC4693204 · DOI
- Zinn R. A., Barreras A., Owens F. N., and Plascencia A. 2008 Performance by feedlot steers and heifers: daily gain, mature body weight, dry matter intake, and dietary energetics. J. Anim. Sci. 86: 2680– 2689. doi: 10.2527/jas.2007-0561 18539825 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Strategies for Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD) Diagnosis and Prognosis: A Comprehensive Overview
Kamel, M. S., Davidson, J. L., & Verma, M. S. (2024) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani14040627 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
“This finding suggests that the behavioral alterations and potential immunosuppression associated with BRD do not necessarily correlate with an elevated risk of lameness [110].”
Background
- Authors
- Davis-Unger, J., Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K. S. G., Pajor, E. A., Hendrick, S., Marti, S., Dorin, C., & Orsel, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Calgary (CA)
- Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (CA)
- Coaldale Veterinary Clinic, Coaldale, Alberta, Canada
- University of Calgary, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Production Animal Health, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- Veterinary Agri-Health Services, Airdrie, Alberta, Canada
- Corresponding author
- Orsel, Karin
- Venue
- Translational Animal Science
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2019-03-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 595-606
- ISSN
- 2573-2102 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7200549
- OpenAlex
- W2921315578
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 4.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Translational Animal Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- IRTA (Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentaries) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency
- Alberta Beef Producers
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Microbial infections and disease research
- Keywords
- lameness, feedlot cattle, bovine respiratory disease, foot rot, joint infection, cattle welfare
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
