GHENT UNIVERSITY Academic year 2014-2015

GHENT UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF VETERINARY MEDICINE

Academic year 2014-2015

Animal behaviour in relation to footbath designs and footbath management

in modern dairy herds in Flanders

by

Isabelle HOSCHET

Promoters: Dr. Miel Hostens

Prof. dr. Geert Opsomer

Research report

as part of the Master’s Dissertation

Hannes Bogaert, DVM © 2015 Isabelle Hoschet

Disclaimer

Universiteit Gent, its employees and/or students, give no warranty that the information provided in this

thesis is accurate or exhaustive, nor that the content of this thesis will not constitute or result in any

infringement of third-party rights.

Universiteit Gent, its employees and/or students do not accept any liability or responsibility for any use

which may be made of the content or information given in the thesis, nor for any reliance which may

be placed on any advice or information provided in this thesis.

GHENT UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF VETERINARY MEDICINE

Academic year 2014-2015

Animal behaviour in relation to footbath designs and footbath management

in modern dairy herds in Flanders

by

Isabelle HOSCHET

Promoters: Dr. Miel Hostens

Prof. dr. Geert Opsomer

Research report

as part of the Master’s Dissertation

Hannes Bogaert, DVM © 2015 Isabelle Hoschet

FOREWORD

First and foremost I would like to thank my dissertation advisor Miel Hostens for all the help

and advice which allowed this research report to come into existence. Due to this research project I

have realised what I would like to do with my future and for the ruminants on our planet. I would also

like to thank Professor Geert Opsomer for his cooperation and advice concerning the final product. For

all the advice received I would also like to thank Hannes Bogaert. My sister, father and stepmother

also need to be mentioned for letting me miss so many family functions and all the support they gave

me. Josee Verheyden needs to be thanked specifically for the endless motivational speeches which

kept me going. I would also like to thank my technical support team; Matteas, Nico en Koen, thank you

in aiding me in obtaining the filming hardware necessary and helping me control the necessary

software. Stephanie Saelen thank you for the support in the final marathon. Thank you all, it was an

amazing journey.

ENGLISH SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 DUTCH SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 2 LITERATURE STUDY ......................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Causes of lameness in cattle ........................................................................................................... 4

2.1. Infectious causes of lameness ............................................................................................ 4

2.1.1. Digital dermatitis .......................................................................................................... 4

2.1.2. Interdigital dermatitis.................................................................................................... 6

2.1.3. Panaritium .................................................................................................................... 7

2.1.4. Heel horn erosion ........................................................................................................ 8

3. Footbaths as a preventive measure ................................................................................................ 8

3.1. Footbath design ................................................................................................................... 8

3.2. Biocides used in footbaths ................................................................................................. 10

3.2.1. Biocides ..................................................................................................................... 10

3.2.2. Formalin ..................................................................................................................... 11

3.2.3. Copper sulphate (CuSO4) ......................................................................................... 11

3.2.4. Glutaraldehyde, quaternary ammonium compounds, organic acids and hydrogen peroxide ..................................................................................................................................12

3.2.5. Oxytetracycline .......................................................................................................... 13

3.3. Commercial biocides ......................................................................................................... 13

3.3.1. Ms Formades ............................................................................................................. 13

3.3.2. Digiderm .................................................................................................................... 14

3.3.3. 4Hooves ..................................................................................................................... 14

3.3.4. Pediline ...................................................................................................................... 14

3.4. Footbath solutions ............................................................................................................. 15

3.5. Footbath Frequency........................................................................................................... 16

4. Research results ............................................................................................................................ 17

4.1. Materials and methods ...................................................................................................... 17

4.1.1. Execution of research and data collection ................................................................. 17

4.1.2. Definitions .................................................................................................................. 18

4.1.3. Results ....................................................................................................................... 19

4.1.3.1. Design analysis ..................................................................................................... 19

4.1.3.2. pH sample analysis ............................................................................................... 24

4.1.3.3. Frequency analysis ................................................................................................ 30

4.1.3.4. Behaviour analysis ................................................................................................ 31

4.1.3.5. Relations between behaviour and footbath design ............................................... 38

DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................... 42 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 48 ADDENDUM ..........................................................................................................................................i

ENGLISH SUMMARY

Infectious causes of lameness are an economically growing concern in modern dairy herds and

footbathing or the disinfection of feet should form part of any good prevention protocol. In the

present work, first a literature review was described concerning infectious causes of lameness

followed by a review about the design and usage of footbaths as a curative and preventive

therapy. An overview of the biocides most often used is given, along with the recommendations by

manufacturers on the correct usage of their products. Furthermore, the present thesis reports a

study in which we analysed the day to day management of the usage of footbaths in 11 modern

Belgian dairy herds and through filming visualized the behavioural traits cattle show when passing

through these footbaths. The design and layout of the footbaths, the solutions used and how they

are dosed and at what frequency they are used all form part of the information gathered. To get a

better understanding of the evolution of the solution as it gets contaminated by the passing cattle.

pH samples were taken to have an idea of how these solutions evolve. Finally, the association

between certain design elements and cow behaviour are made. Using this strategy we aimed to

shed light on which elements of the footbath management systems need to be taken into account

or altered in order to optimize the usage of a footbath. The most prominent finding is that all

farmers dose the products in their footbaths badly which brings the effectiveness of these

footbaths in question. It is clear however with this small study we were able to highlight some very

interesting facts about the management and design of footbaths for use in the modern dairy herd.

Further research could shed even more light on this subject to aid farmers in performing this task

correctly to combat infectious lameness at herd level.

Key words: Behaviour – Cattle – Footbath - Management - pH

2

DUTCH SUMMARY

Manken algemeen en manken ten gevolge van infectieuze klauwaandoeningen is een enorm

belangrijk economisch probleem bij melkvee dat niet alleen welzijnsprobleem teweeg brengt maar

eveneens productieverliezen. Verminderde melkgift geassocieerd met kruepelheuid kan oplopen

tot 360 kg per lactatie wat enorme verliezen betekent voor de veehouder. Eveneens zullen manke

dieren minder duidelijk tochtigheidssymptomen vertonen wat een invloed zal hebben op de

vruchtbaarheidsresultaten van het bedrijf. Een mank dier zal bovendien minder regelmatig eten

wat aanleiding kan geven tot verscheidene metabole aandoeningen wat leidt tot een vicieuze

cirkel om tot een verminderde productie te komen. In het hier beschreven onderzoek wordt het

klauwbad centraal gezet als preventieve maatregel tegen infectieuze klauwaandoeningen. Een

klauwbad of algemeen het ontsmetten van de klauwen zou deel moeten uitmaken van elk

mankheidspreventieprotocol op een modern merlkveebedrijf. Als eerste stap is er gekeken naar

de verschillende infectieuze klauwaandoeningen waar men rekening dient mee te houden. Digitale

dermatitis blijkt hiervan de belangrijkste te zijn. Vervolgens werd dieper ingegaan op het ontwerp

van klauwbaden op zich. Wat zijn de ideale afmetingen en gebruiksmodaliteiten van een klauwbad

om zo efficiënt mogelijk het baden van de klauwen uit te voeren. Het klauwbad is niets zonder

haar inhoud waarnaar vervolgens werd gekeken. Er is een enorm gamma aan biociden op de

markt voor het behandelen van klauwen. Na een verduidelijking van de wettelijke definitie van een

biocide, werden de meest gebruikte biociden even toegelicht gevolgd door een korte aanhaling

van de commercieële biociden gebruikt door de veehouders in dit onderzoek gevolgd door de

aanbevelingen door de fabrikant. De frequentie van voetbaden die gewenst is, samen met

veschillende eisen die gesteld worden aan de oplossing in het voetbad worden als laatste

behandeld in de literatuurstudie. Voor de bespreking van de resultaten van het onderzoek werd

hetzelfde stramien gevolgd als de literatuurstudie. Hoe dit onderzoek tot stand is gekomen werd in

het onderdeel materiaal en methoden verduidelijkt. Vervolgens werden de gebruikte definities

weergegeven en werd een overzicht gegeven van het onderwerp van de verschillende

klauwbaden die in het onderzoek werden opgenomen. Dit werd gevolgd door een analyse van de

oplossingen gebruikt in dit onderzoeken door een bespreking van de frequenties die de

veehouders aanhouden inzake het gebruik van de klauwbaden. Uit dit eerder beperkte onderzoek

kwam naar voren dat geen enkele veehouder zijn voetbad correct doseert. De pH van de

oplossingen werd eveneens opgevolgd in functie van het aantal koeien dat door het bad loopt. Dit

wordt gevolgd door een analyse van de gedragingen die werde genoteerd tijdens het filmen, dit

zijn onder andere gedragingen, zoals aarzelen en snuffelen, uit het voetbad huppelen of er in

springen, blijven staan in het klauwbad, defeceren en drinken van het klauwbad die werden

genoteerd tijdens het filmen. Als laatste volgt er een analyse die een overeenstemming tracht te

zoeken tussen de verschillende bad ontwerpen en het bovien gedrag.

Als algemene conclusie kunnen we stellen dat er momenteel nog heel veel fouten worden

gemaakt in het dagelijks management van klauwbaden. Verder onderzoek en een adequate

ondersteuning van de veehouders blijken alvast van uitermate belang te zijn.

3

LITERATURE STUDY

1. Introduction

Footbathing is an essential part of farm life because lameness and lameness control are of

growing concern in dairy herds globally. Economically the cost of lameness places third after

mastitis and fertility problems which makes it a problem worthy of attention (Enting et al., 1997).

There is not only a decrease in animal welfare but a detrimental effect on herd productivity can

also be seen. Milk production is decreased several months before and after the diagnosis of

lameness resulting in approximately 360 kg of milk loss per lactation (Green et al., 2002, Archer et

al., 2010). Hence it is of great importance to diagnose lameness in the early stages before it

becomes clinical, even better it is best to prevent lameness as much as possible. Unfortunately

due to the great variation in research methodologies and treatment plans it is difficult to form a

uniform idea of all the possibilities available (Cook et al.,2012). This research report was designed

to get a better idea of the way cows move through footbaths in daily life and how these baths in

question are managed by the farmer. It will become clear that all farmers have their own

management methods which almost always differ from the recommendations by manufacturers.

Every bath is designed differently which will cause the cows to experience footbathing in a positive

or negative light. To obtain this data 11 farms were visited and their footbaths investigated. A total

of 849 cows were filmed whilst passing through their footbath to have an idea how this works,

together they resulted in 1004 cow passages. Samples of the footbaths were taken approximately

every 50 cow passes to have an idea of the evolution of the pH levels in the baths. The products

used and the frequency of footbathing was also noted.

Before analysing the data acquired, the literature available on the subject had to be evaluated.

It soon became clear that there is a lot of literature available on the comparison of different

commercial products but not much on the design, the optimal management and needs of the cows

when walking through a footbath. The information that is available is mostly found on commercial

internet sources controlled by the companies selling the baths and/or the products used in the

baths. This makes these sources of information not very objective but necessary to have an idea

of the possibilities available for farmers. What dimensions does the bath need to have, what

solution needs to be added at what concentration, how often does the solution have to be

replaced, how often should the cows be treated etc. These are all questions that should be

answered as to allow a farmer to successfully manage his footbath in order to maximise its effect.

To hopefully gain an answer to these questions first the most important infectious claw lesions that

are treated by footbaths are discussed. Second the biocides used and commercial biocides

available are examined one by one. The design of footbaths is the next topic explored after which

the solutions used and solutions compared in literature are discussed one by one followed by the

different frequencies best used. This concludes the literature study and leads on to the research

report.

The research report in itself involved a lot of driving, organisation and creative thinking to

obtain the videos needed. The lighting or placement of the baths sometimes proved challenging to

4

film but creative thinking and team work with the farmer made it possible in all cases to obtain

adequate film material. Once the data collected, it was analysed digitally as will be discussed in

the materials and methods part of this research report. This resulted in a large amount of raw data

that had to be moulded into something meaningful. It is clear that there is a lot of variation

between the farms studied. Their measurements, layout, products used, hygiene, frequency of

footbathing and general way of dealing with their cattle is different which influences the data

collected. This had to be taken into account when drawing conclusions from the data. This

research report will first discuss the different designs encountered on the farms. The farmers for

example had built in baths or baths that had to be placed when needed to be used. Second, the

pH samples were taken from the baths were analysed in relation to the amount of cow passes and

to the products used in the footbaths. Third, the frequency of footbathing applied by the farmers is

analysed. Next an analysis of the different behaviours noted during the filming will be discussed

and finally compared to some parameters measured during the research report. This entire

assembly results in a better understanding of how cows envision footbaths and how they react to

stimuli added by the farmers as well as the influence of design on bovine behaviour.

2. Causes of lameness in cattle

Claw lesions in cattle can either be categorised as infectious or non-infectious. Infectious

lesions are caused by bacteria, fungi or viruses whereas non-infectious lesions are not primarily

caused by a micro organism, however they will often become secondarily infected. The most

common claw infections in cattle are: digital dermatitis, interdigital dermatitis, panaritium and heel

horn erosions. Non infectious claw lesions occurring most often are white-line defects, sole ulcers,

laminitis and tylomas. These non infectious causes will not be discussed further because their

occurrence is not relevant to the current report study.

2.1. Infectious causes of lameness

2.1.1. Digital dermatitis

Digital dermatitis (DD) (Mortellaro, strawberry footrot, raspberry heel etc.) is an infectious,

contagious and painful dermatitis of the skin in cattle. It causes inflammation of the skin on the

hind feet immediately proximal to the heel bulb and extends into the interdigital space (Smith,

2015). Digital dermatitis is the main cause of infectious lameness in cattle (Holzhauer et al., 2012,

Logue et al., 2012, Speijers et al., 2012). First described by the Italian Professor Mortellaro in

1974 this disease has become endemic in western and southern Europe as well as the United

States (Holzhauer et al., 2006). Many obligate anaerobic organisms have been associated with

DD but isolated most often are Spirochetes from the genus Treponema (Holzhauer et al., 2006;

Smith, 2015). Digital dermatitis occurs most often in housing where cattle are housed for most of

the year (Speijers et al., 2012), especially Holstein-Friesians have been found to be more

sensitive in comparison to other breeds (Holzhauer et al., 2006; Van Aert, 2009) with the risk

decreasing as parity increases (Holzhauer et al., 2006, Logue et al., 2012).

5

The most important clinical symptoms are lameness, lifting of the foot and walking tiptoed. The

infection will cause ulcerative lesions and inflammation resulting in skin damage leading to pain

and discomfort (Speijers et al., 2012). Although affected cows are usually not ill, they will have a

decrease in milk production and diminished reproductive performance (Holzhauer et al., 2006).

Current research states that DD is a multifactorial infection involving environmental, microbial,

host, and management factors (Holzhauer et al., 2006; Smith, 2015). Due to this, curing as well as

preventing DD requires an integrated approach. In order to properly reduce the prevalence, a

treatment and control plan needs to be executed in parallel with a preventive footbath (Smith et

al.,2014). Environmental hygiene, reduction of standing times thanks to well designed cubicles,

prompt treatment of lesions and disinfection of claws are all necessary to reduce DD in the herd

(Holzhauer et al., 2012). Curing DD requires that the cow’s feet are pedicured, the lesions cleaned

and treated with either an oxytetracyclin spray or a gel containing CuSO4 or ZnSO4 (Van Aert,

2009). If the lesions are very painful a bandage can be placed which needs to be removed after

three days (Ilvo, 2013).

There are different stages of DD, these are illustrated hereafter in Figure 1-5.

Figure 1: Stage 1 (M1) diameter from 0-2 cm,

red, sensitive and defined lesion (Van Aert,

2009) surrounded by a white epithelial border

(Ilvo, 2013).

Figure 2: Stage 2 (M2) diameter >2 cm, very painful,

strawberry like appearance surrounded by a white

epithelial border. Often there is the occurrence of

raised hairs (Van Aert, 2009). This stage is the most

infectious (Ilvo, 2013).

6

Figure 3: Stage 2 (M2) very large lesion,

ulceration of the skin, very painful, interdigital

space swollen shut (Van Aert, 2009).

Figure 4: Stage 3 (M3). A less painful lesion covered

by a black crust. The interdigital space is swollen

shut (Van Aert, 2009) and there is pocket formation

in the interdigital space where dirt can accumulate

(Ilvo, 2013).

Figure 5: Stage 4 (M4). Chronic stage,

interdigital space swollen shut (Van Aert,

2009). A small crust covers the lesion

although pain is no longer an issue, the lesion

is still visible (llvo, 2013).

2.1.2. Interdigital dermatitis

Interdigital dermatitis is a condition where the interdigital skin of the foot in inflamed but where

lameness is nonexistent to moderate (Smith, 2015). It is caused by a multitude of bacteria but

Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterum necrophorum are the most common pathogens found

in this infectious process. Interdigital dermatitis occurs on almost every farm although in different

gradations depending on the infectious load on the animals, this obviously being highest in winter

when the cows do not go outside. Time on pasture can cure these lesions almost completely.

Symptoms will evolve from a mild infection of the interdigital skin to an erosive lesion resulting in

7

skin damage. This can eventually undermine the heel resulting in the heel horn erosions to

assume a V-formed shape. This affliction can be treated individually by cleaning out the interdigital

space and spraying the lesion with a tetracycline spray. Prevention is attained by footbathing and

good farm hygiene (Ilvo, 2013). It should be noted however that the bacteria can survive

footbathing due to their deep location in the heel cracks, for this reason these cracks must be

trimmed away to allow exposure (Smith, 2015).

Figure 6: Interdigital dermatitis in the foot of a cow (Ilvo, 2013).

2.1.3. Panaritium

Panaritium is a not a frequently occurring infection caused by bacteria such as Fusobacterium

necrophorum and Bacteriodes melaninogenicus. The animal will develop a fever, become

suddenly lame with a swelling of the tissues proximal of the claws. As the leg continues to swell

the infection can break out in the interdigital space turning into a purulent infection. The tissues will

become necrotic and if left untreated the infection can spread to the joints of the foot. Treatment

consists of a systemic penicillin treatment complemented with a local treatment of the foot (Ilvo,

2013).

Figure 7: Panaritium in foot of the cow (Ilvo, 2013).

8

2.1.4. Heel horn erosion

Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum are the bacteria most commonly

found in heel horn erosion infections. This lesion occurs most often on both claws and in the

region of the heel. Due to a higher infectious pressure, this will mostly occur in winter when the

animals are kept indoors full time. Clinical lameness only occurs in severe cases where the heel

horn is undermined and the grooves created become deep. The best treatment for these lesions is

spraying them with antibiotic spray after removing the loosened horn and cleaning the foot (Ilvo,

2013).

Figure 8: Severe heel horn erosion in the foot of a cow (Ilvo, 2013).

3. Footbaths as a preventive measure

Footbathing, or the disinfection of feet, is an essential tool in any lameness-prevention

program to prevent the spread of infectious claw disorders. It also conditions and strengthens the

hoof’s soft tissue making it more resistant to pathogens. Due to the lack of scientific data available

and the entire sector basically resting on empirical findings, there is a great need to standardize

footbath testing methodology to provide comparable results across studies. The design and

frequency of usage should be included in that standardization (Burgi, 2010; Cook et al., 2012).

Every farm should have a different protocol in place based on the environment, hygiene and

stocking density in order to control DD.

The design of the footbath is necessary for efficacy when it is used but the content of the bath

and the frequency with which it is applied ensures the disinfection of the feet. For this reason first

the different design parameters necessary for a good footbath will be discussed followed by the

different biocides and their properties finally finishing with at which frequency these should best be

used.

3.1. Footbath design

The design and orientation of footbaths contains an enormous amount of variables. At the

moment there is no golden standard. A few guidelines need to be followed to ensure maximum

9

efficacy. Length, width, flooring and instep height all need to be taken into account. Adequate

length is of outmost importance and will yield better results if a longer and shorter bath are

compared (Logue et al., 2012). The longer the bath, the higher the number of foot immersions, the

better the exposure of the foot to the solution (Cook et al., 2012). To allow maximum exposure

through foot immersions but at the same time limit the amount of solution needed Cook et al.

(2012) suggests a bath with the following dimensions: length 3 – 3.7 m, width 0.5 - 0.6 m with a

step-in height of 0.28 m. The higher step-in results in less bath solution leakage while still being

tolerated by cattle (Cook et al., 2012). Width seems to be less important, it can be determined by

the width of the alley in which the bath is placed (Cook, 2006). Burgi (2010) agrees with these

findings although realises that ideal dimensions are difficult to master. On the one hand the bath

needs to be small enough as to not be costly due to the high price of products, on the other hand

the bath needs to be large enough to ensure an adequate amount of immersions per foot and limit

the influence of faecal deactivation due to manure from defecation and from dirty feet (Cook et al.,

2012).

Side walls should be high enough so the cows are led appropriately without walking on them,

cows also prefer to walk through a closed walled space (Burgi, 2010). The floor of the bath should

not be rough although it needs to be non slip (Cook, 2006). Figure 9 shows us the footbath by

Cook et al. (2012). This bath combines the parameters needed which are described above. The

bath is narrow but the sides widen as they rise so the cows do not mind walking through it. The

bath can also be closed when it is not in use so it can be kept clean between footbathing sessions.

10

Figure 9: Footbath design to optimize cow flow and the number of foot immersions per cow, while

minimizing bath volume (Cook et al., 2012). An ideal length is between 3 and 3,7 m with an instep

of 28 cm. The suggested width is 0,5 to 0,6 m at the bath which branches out at a angle of 70° to

end a metre higher. This outward angle enables the cows to walk through the bath whilst limiting

the amount of solution needed. This bath can also be closed with the lid that forms the wall on the

right hand side when open.

3.2. Biocides used in footbaths

3.2.1. Biocides

The products used in footbaths are biocides. A biocide is defined by European Regulation

528/2012 of 22 may 2012 of the European Parliament and the Council concerning the offer on the

market and use of biocides as: a substance or mixture that is delivered to the user which consists

of one or more active substances with the goal of destroying, disarming or preventing the effects

of a harmful micro organism. Annex 5 gives us the types of biocides and their definitions that

make up Regulation 528/2012. Group 1 consists of the disinfectants. This group is divided into

different subgroups. The product type subgroup that interests us is the third. This subgroup

concerns animal hygiene. The products in this group are biocides for veterinary use such as

disinfectants, soaps, products for mouth and body hygiene or products with an antibacterial

function. This also includes the products used for the disinfection of materials and surfaces

associated with the infrastructure and transport of animals.

11

Biocides are divided into 2 classes depending on the risks involved for the user, class A or not

class A. This results in a difference between biocides for the general public versus biocides for

professional use (class A). Biocides in class A have the property that they are dangerous in all

possible ways imaginable such as carcinogen, mutagen, toxic etc. Products not classed in class A

are usable for the general public as well as professional users whereas class A products are only

for professional use. The products used in footbaths are for professional use.

3.2.2. Formalin

Formalin (Formaldehyde (40%)) is a colourless watery liquid that is used for the disinfection of

bovine feet. Formalin is soluble in water (Gestis, 2015; Pubchem, 2015) and has a pH ranging

from 2,8 to 5,0 (Ross, 1983). It can be defined as a noncorrosive, biodegradable chemical that is

rapidly degraded when in contact with manure (Cook, 2006) with the huge downside is that it is

carcinogenic as well as toxic (Speijers et al., 2012). Formalin is best stored at temperatures

ranging between 10 - 30°C because outside of this range it polymerises. This polymerisation is

partially inhibited by adding methanol which is added in commercial solutions. Formalin in low

concentrations is toxic to most animal cells as well as micro-organisms with the logical

consequence that it is extremely irritating to the respiratory tract as wel as mucosae (Van Aert,

2009; Ross, 1983). In sheep, prolonged exposure as well as exposure to concentrations higher

than 10% will result in hyperaemia, keratinisation and secondary infections of the interdigital skin

leading to more lameness. The most common strategy is formalin 4% one day every other week

(Holzhauer et al., 2012).

3.2.3. Copper sulphate (CuSO4)

Copper sulphate is a biocide used for the disinfection of feet. It is soluble in water and at a

temperature of 20°C and concentration of 50g/l has a pH of 3,5 – 4,5 (Gestis, 2015). The toxicity

of copper comes from its effect on the structure and function of biomolecules like DNA,

membranes and proteins through oxygen radical mechanisms (PubChem, 2015). Although

CuSO4 is effective in preventing new infections it has some disadvantages. For it to function it

must be kept in ionic form, the way to attain this is to keep the solution acidic. A pH of less than

3,8 is necessary to have this effect otherwise there will be too many competing chemical

processes taking place in the bath to allow the copper to work correctly. As the copper

concentration is diminished due to its activity and manure as well as urine are added to the bath

by the cows, the pH needs to remain stable and low (Hoofbathtender, 2015).

The environmental implications also need to be taken into account. Copper sulphate deposited

into the manure lagoon will be increase the copper concentration of the fields when used for

fertilization (Teixeira et al., 2010). These high concentrations of copper can result in toxic and

negative effects on for example plant growth (Smith et al., 2014). Therefore it is of outmost

importance to maximize effectiveness and minimize the waste of copper sulphate. Also due to the

rising prices of copper sulphate farmers undertake efforts to reduce the amounts used. This can

be done by using cleaning agents, formalin or zinc sulphate (Cook, 2006). Preventively Copper

12

sulphate is effective but it’s ability to cure digital dermatitis is questionable, Oxytetracycline seems

to be more effective, unfortunately the use of antibiotics such as this one are best avoided

because of concerns regarding milk contamination, environmental factors and the development of

resistant bacteria (Holzhauer et al., 2012). One way to reduce usage is to increase the time

interval in between footbathing sessions. Unfortunately research shows that this is not the best

method to reduce copper sulphate use (Speijers et al., 2012).

Research is actively trying to compare formalin and copper sulphate as well as comparing

them to other commercially available products. When comparing formalin 4% to an acidified,

ionized copper sulphate solution authors found that the cure rate was similar for both solutions.

The prevention rate however was 3 times higher for the copper sulphate solution (Holzhauer et al.,

2012). Another example is comparing it to Dragonhyde (T-Hexx Dragonhyde HBC, Hydromer,

Branchburg, NJ). Dragonhyde contains no antibiotics, no heavy metals and no formaldehyde

making it environmentally friendly. An American study shows that Dragonhyde performs better

than formalin although no significant difference can be found with copper sulphate. This could

mean that Dragonhyde could serve as a worthy alternative for Copper Sulphate. Dragonhyde also

has the advantage that it colours the feet of the cows so the farmer can see if the solution is still

viable or if it needs to be changed (Teixeira et al., 2010). Provita Hoofsure Endurance (Provita

Eurotech Ltd., Omagh, UK) was examined in comparison to copper sulphate. The advantage of

Provita is that is a biodegradable solution containing organic acids, tea tree oil and wetting agents.

In this formula the tea tree oil has an anti microbial and anti inflammatory action. No statistically

significant difference was found between copper sulphate and Provita indicating that Provita could

also be a worthy alternative (Smith et al., 2014).

3.2.4. Glutaraldehyde, quaternary ammonium compounds, organic acids and hydrogen

peroxide

These products are allowed as biocides according to European legislation and for this reason

are integrated in products available for the use of claw treatments. Glutaraldehyde is a

crosslinking reagent that is used as a disinfectant for sterilization of heat-sensitive equipment

which is soluble in water but forms a polymer solution when combined with water. Glutaraldehyde

is stable in light but will oxidise in the presence of air. It’s mechanism of action relies on its cross-

linking abilities which will occur with peptidoglycan in the bacterial cell wall (Gestis, 2015;

PubChem, 2015).

Quaternary ammonium compounds are also used as anti-infective agents; unfortunately they

lose their activity in the presence of organic material. An example of a quaternary ammonium

compound is Benzalkoniumchloride, also known as alkyldimethylammoniumchloride (ADBAC).

This compound has a pH ranging from 5 - 6, which is soluble in water. Another quaternary

ammonium compound is didecylmethylammoniumchloride (DDAC). This is also classified as a

disinfectant that is used in many biocidal applications which has a pH of 6,5 and is also soluble in

water (Gestis, 2015; PubChem, 2015).

13

Organic acids such as citric acid are also used in footbaths because of their effect on bacteria.

These acids can penetrate the cell wall of bacteria and disrupt the normal physiology by lowering

the pH in the bacteria itself leading to osmotic changes which will destroy the bacteria from the

inside out (Gestis, 2015; PubChem, 2015).

Hydrogen peroxide can also be used as a disinfectant which is broken down to water and

oxygen. The creation of oxygen destroys the anaerobic environment the bacteria need to survive.

This system can be used in combination with a robot milking system. Every time a cow enters her

feet can be sprayed. No scientific data exists on the subject but farmers seem to think that the

lesions are less severe (Van Aert, 2009).

Thomsen et al. (2008) unfortunately did not find a significant difference between the control

side of the cow and the treated side of the cow when the following products were used. The

products used were Virocid (concentration of 1,5%, active components: glutaraldehyde, DDAC,

ADBAC), Hoofcare DA (concentration 2%, active components: quaternary ammonium

compounds) and Kickstart 2 (concentration 1%, active components: hydrogen peroxide, acetic

acid, peracetic acid) (Thomsen et al., 2008).

Further research and different combinations need to be studied to find a worthy alternative.

3.2.5. Oxytetracycline

Oxytetracycline is not a biocide but an antibiotic that forms part of the tetracycline antibiotics

group. This group has a broad activity spectrum against GRAM–, GRAM+, anaerobic, aerobic and

bacteria with genus, Mycoplasma, Rickettsia and Clamdydia. Genus Proteus and Pseudomonas

are naturally resistant. Tetracyclines inhibit protein synthesis through a bond with the 30S subunit

of the ribosome, this bacteriostatic function works best in a acid environment. It should be noted

however that there are no oxytetracyclins registered for use in footbaths (BCFI, 2014). It is also

best to not use antibiotics because of the dangers of the development of antibacterial resistance in

the long run. Environmental contamination and milk contamination are also to be considered

(Holzhauer et al., 2012).

3.3. Commercial biocides

3.3.1. Ms Formades

A few farms use formalin in their footbaths in this research report. Formalin is used by itself on

Farm 2 and Farm 9, Farm 10 combines formalin with a small amount of copper sulphate. MS

Formades manufactured by MS Schippers (Bladel, Netherlands) is the solution most used. The

manufacturer states that formalin is a strong disinfectant that is used for the prevention of

Mortellaro and the disinfection of infrastructure. It also hardens the claws making them less

susceptible to lesions. MS Schippers suggests that footbaths best get used 3-5 days successively

every 2-3 weeks. Formalin can also be sprayed on the feet of the cows individually with a back

sprayer. Dosing in a footbath is suggested at 3-4 liters of Formades in 100 liters of water

(Schippers, 2015). For a solution with 4 litres of Formades, with a formaldehyde concentration of

14

40% gives us a concentration of formaldehyde of 1,6% in a bath of 100l. If 3 litres is used it results

in a concentration of 1.2% formaldehyde.

3.3.2. Digiderm

Digiderm (Lelystad, Netherlands) is the solution used most often in this research report.

Manufacturers state that Digiderm needs to be mixed with Copper Sulphate to attain a correct

solution. Digiderm is used on Farms 6, 7 and 11. Digiderm consists of buffered Sulphuric acid and

buffered Phosphoric acid. This solution does not contain heavy metals, formaldehyde or

antibiotics. Manufacturers suggest the use of 1 litre of Digiderm for every 50 litres of water which

needs to be completed with 1 kg of Copper Sulphate. This results in a 1:50 ratio of Digiderm and a

2% concentration of copper sulphate. Digiderm works through its low pH and copper sulphate

adds to the effect by functioning best in a low pH solution to result in good disinfection.

Eventhough this solution has a low pH it is safe for humans and animals. According to

manufacturers it is also three times more effective that formalin for the prevention of DD. Due to

the reduction of copper sulphate it also is less detrimental for the environment. The manufacturer

suggests a relative intensive scheme in the beginning to reduce the prevalence and the

development ofnew infections of DD. In the first eight weeks at the start of the program the cows

should be footbathed every week for three successive days a fresh footbath every day. The next 4

weeks the footbath should be used two days a week twice a week. Finally from week 13 onwards,

every week, once a week, a fresh footbath should be laid out to keep DD under control (Digiderm,

2015).

3.3.3. 4Hooves

4Hooves is manufactured by DeLaval (Tumba, Sweden) as a hoof sanitizer. It contain no

antibiotics, no formaldehyde, no copper sulphate and no heavy metals. Pre cleaning the feet is

advised by the manufacturer before the feet are disinfected. 4Hooves is a powerful germicide

made up of a patented blend consisting of DDAC and ADBAC that is biodegradable. Dosing is

recommended at a 1% solution. This results for a footbath, in a 1:100 solution. A 200 litre bath

with 2 litres of 4Hooves is enough for 200 cows. If the solution is dirty before this amount of cow

passages is reached it should also be changed. Usage frequency is according to the manufacturer

best twice a week once a day for routine treatment. Daily use can be carried out for farms with a

high occurrence of DD. Farm 5 is the only farm in this report that uses 4Hooves (DeLaval, 2015).

3.3.4. Pediline

Pediline Pro is manufactured by Cid Lines (Ieper, Belgium). It consists of 17% ADBAC, 7,8%

DDAC which are quaternary compounds and 10,7% glutaaraldehyde. Pediline Pro contains no

heavy metals. The unique composition results in a product with a broad spectrum and good

penetration which does not get deactivated when in contact with organic material. Farm 1 and 4

both use Pediline Pro. Manufacturers suggest a 3% solution for cows and sheep. The solution can

be used in a bath or sprayed on the feet individually. It is suggested that the bath is used every

15

month for 5 consecutive days, once or twice a day. Ideally the solution should be in contact with

the feet for at least 5 minutes (Cid Lines, 2015).

3.4. Footbath solutions

Cook et al. (2012) states that a footbath can have 2 functions. One of which needs to be

chosen when carrying out bovine foot care. A footbath can either clean the foot of manure or

disinfect the interdigital space of the claw. A rotation of different agents and disinfectants achieves

the best results (Burgi, 2010). To clean the claw, detergents such as hand soap, bleach or rock

salt can be used to loosen the manure so air can get into the interdigital space (Burgi, 2010; Cook

et al., 2012). These detergents can be used one third to a half of the time in a rotation with

disinfectants (Burgi, 2010). A variety of products is available to complement these cleaning

agents. Unfortunately most of the information available relies on empirical and commercial data.

For this reason the correct dosage should always be used and the manufacturer’s

recommendations should always be followed (Burgi, 2010). The products most often used as an

antibacterial for disinfection are copper sulphate and formalin despite the wide variety of products

available. This suggests that they are the most cost effective and efficacious according to

producers and consumers. Cook et al. (2012) points out that various authors agree with these

findings. In many studies 4% formalin and copper sulphate at a concentration of 2–5% is used and

appears to provide effective control (Cook et al., 2012). Cook (2006) already stated 6 years earlier

that it is best to combine different disinfectants in a footbath program and that chemicals should be

replaced after approximately 200 cow passes. This vision is still accurate according to Cook

himself in 2012, however he states that this fact makes it difficult to use footbaths efficiently on

very large dairy farms where the solution will have to be changed after a few pens (Cook et al.,

2012, Van Aert, 2009). The activity of the chemicals depends on the amount of faeces deposited

in the bath by passing cows. If not changed regularly the contamination with organic matter from

the feet or defecation causes deactivation of the solution and in the end a breeding medium for

bacteria (Burgi, 2010).

To allow the solution to perform optimally the feet of the cows need to be as clean as possible

before entering the solution. After passing through the solution the cows should ideally move into

a dry and clean area to allow the solution to act. Burgi (2010) does not recommend a wash bath

before the bath itself. This rarely yields positive results because the wash-bath tends to dilute the

solution of the footbath. Furthermore the hoof skin will not absorb the solution as efficiently if it is

already wet. Also more urination and defecation will occur in the footbath if a wash bath is

available resulting in the deactivation of the solution (Burgi, 2010). Feet should be clean and dry to

allow the solution to work at optimal capacity. This means that farm hygiene is of outmost

importance.

The temperature, concentration, type of active antibacterial agent and the susceptibility of the

agent to faecal deactivation and the time the solution is exposed to manure all have an influence

on the chemicals used. In practice this problem is solved by evaluating the prevalence of infection

16

in the different herds passing one after the other over time (Cook et al., 2012). Finally, when not in

use the bath should be kept clean and closed to not form a source of bacteria (Burgi, 2010).

To sum up, more specific scientific advice should be available to ensure optimal activity and

effectiveness of the solution used to maximise results.

3.5. Footbath Frequency

A footbath should be used regularly to be effective. Cook et al. (2012) found that despite this

general tune there is great variation in the amount of times per day and per week with which

footbaths are used. Due to the problems associated with the disposal of the chemicals used, the

best advice is to use a footbath as little as possible but often enough to maintain control over the

infectious claw lesions present in a herd. The usage frequency varies according to environmental

factors, farm hygiene and stocking density. As it can be seen above in the summary per product

used in this research report it is clear that there is a lot of variation regarding dosing and usage for

the different products by different manufacturers. That is why it is of outmost importance to always

follow the instructions supplied by the manufacturer. Cook (2006) however has tried to use hoof

and leg hygiene scoring to come up with a guide for footbathing frequency. To have a

representative idea of the hygiene status of the cattle it is best to score at least 20% of the cows in

a herd or pen. First score 1 is a clean cow where there is little to no manure on the lower

extremities. Second score 2 has mild splashing of faeces on the legs. Moderately dirty cows

where there are plaques visible on the limb that progress up the leg classify as score 3. Finally

score 4 is a very dirty cow where the plaques are confluent and form a crust on the limb which

also climb up higher. These scores can be translated into footbathing frequencies. As can be seen

in the table appearing in Figure 10, in relation to the percentage of cows scoring in the 3 and 4

range, the suggested amount days of footbathing per week can be deduced.

Other research has also found that for example in cubicle housed cattle it is best to footbath

weekly for 2-3 consecutive days (Logue et al., 2012). For formalin the most common strategy is

formalin 4% one day every other week (Holzhauer et al., 2012). It is however best to read the

recommendations supplied by manufacturers.

17

Figure 10: Frequency of footbathing in relation to cow hygiene (Cook, 2006). At least 20% of the

cows in the herd or stall need to be scored to have an accurate idea of the leg hygiene. The score

is from 1-4 with decreasing hygiene as the score becomes higher. The percentage of cows with a

score of 3-4 need to be taken into account when calculating the suggested frequency of

footbathing. For example if 25-50% of the cows have a 3-4 leg hygiene score a 2 day a week

footbath is suggested.

4. Research results

4.1. Materials and methods

4.1.1. Execution of research and data collection

To get an idea of the use of foot baths in modern Belgian dairy herds, eleven farms were

chosen for the execution of this research report. Appointments were made with the respective

farmers to enable filming during the passage through the footbath on the farms in question. If

possible, an appointment was made to not disrupt the farmer’s or the cow’s foot bathing protocol.

A Sony Handycam DCR-SR37, Sony Corporation (Tokyo, Japan) was used for filming. When

possible this was mounted on a tripod. The respective films were all watched one by one on a

ASUS M51Vseries laptop (Taipei, Taiwan) and simultaneously the recorded behaviours were

summarized in Excel, Microsoft Corporation (Albuquerque, United States of America) on a

connected Samsung 21 inch computer screen (Seoul, South Korea). A questionnaire was filled out

before the cows went through the footbath to have all the information regarding the dosage of the

solution and amount of cows that would be passing through. An example of this protocol can be

seen in Annex I. Once arrived at the farm the questionnaire was first filled out with the farmer.

18

Subsequently, measurements were taken of the footbaths and their surroundings which were then

drawn on the back of the protocol page by hand. Pictures were taken of the footbath and its

immediate surroundings to document the layout of the bath and to catalogue the farm in question.

These pictures were taken with a Nikon D90 (Tokyo, Japan). Once this information noted, the

farmer went through the motions as if nothing was different, in most cases this was milking. Before

the cows went through the bath the amount of solution in the bath was noted and a begin sample

was taken. This sample was taken in order to monitor the evolution of the pH in the footbath as the

cows passed through it. A sample was taken approximately every fifty cow passes if this was

possible. Once the filming complete the films were watched and analysed as stated above.

It should be noted that on all the farms the only cows footbathed were the cows in lactation.

Young stock and dried-off cows were not taken up in this system. The footbaths were in all but

three cases placed in the path leading away from the milking parlour so the cows could pass after

they had been milked. On two of these three farms the baths were placed the stable. On one farm

the footbath was a separate annex that was accessible trough doors leading into the stable.

Farmer intervention was often present whilst the cows passed through the bath to maintain a

higher tempo. This occurred especially when the cows did not want to pass through the bath in

question. These interventions lead to influenced natural behaviour and are taken into account

when the data is analysed. This diverse data collection resulted in an inside scope into the manner

in which cows pass through baths in use and how farmers manage their footbaths in daily life. In

total 1004 cow passages were filmed over these 11 farms. On four farms some cows passed

through the bath multiple times. On one farm (farm 2) this is due to robot milking, and on the other

it is due to the footbathing management where footbathing occurs outside the milking schedule.

Here the cows were made to pass through the footbath multiple times. The absolute numbers of

individual cows that were filmed is 849. This brings the average number of cows residing at 77 per

farm. The smallest farm contains 49 lactating cows and the largest has 124 lactating cattle,

making these relatively small dairy herds.

4.1.2. Definitions

During filming every cow’s individual behaviour was evaluated when she approached the bath

and passed through it. When possible the behaviour leaving the bath was also noted. The

following behavioural traits were studied, followed by their definition.

Hesitation: This trait is divided into 3 different categories. A cow can either: not hesitate, hesitate

for less or more than 5 seconds. A hesitation is defined as a pause, alteration or slowing of rhythm

leading up to and entering the footbath.

Amount of feet per bath: Since a cow has 4 feet, a foot immersion can be seen as a ¼th of a cow.

This implies that if a cow immerses each foot once this gives a total value of 1. If every foot gets

immersed twice this becomes 2 and so on.

Amount of feet next to bath: This behaviour is noted when a foot does not land in the solution

when placed, this counts as 1 foot next to the bath, if this reoccurs this becomes 2 etc.

19

Jumping in: Jumping in occurs when the cow simultaneously lifts both front and/or hind feet when

entering the bath.

Drinking: A cow that stops before entering the bath and placing her lips into the solution for a

moment qualifies as drinking behaviour.

Sniffing: This behaviour was noted when a cow would be sniffing her environment at any point

during the approach and entry of the bath.

Defecation: Defecation can occur before, whilst going in or after passage through the bath.

Defecation occurring directly after passage through the bath was recorded when it was possible

by the camera angle that could be realised.

Hopping out: Hopping out is defined as one or more hind and/or front feet hopping (jumping) when

exiting the bath.

Raising tail: When the cow lifts her tail past an angle greater than 45° in relation to her hind legs

this is noted as raising tail behaviour.

Remain stationary in bath >5 seconds: When passing through a foot bath some cows remain

stationary at some point for more than 5 seconds consecutively. This behaviour was also noted

when it was made possible by the camera angle and farmer intervention.

These definitions can be seen on film on the USB stick in Annex II.

Figure 11: Drinking behaviour Figure 12: Raising tail behaviour

4.1.3. Results

4.1.3.1. Design analysis

It has become clear that it is not easy to design the perfect footbath because of all the elements

that need to be taken into account. There is a lot of variation between footbaths and this can be

20

seen below in Figure 13 - 23. These are the pictures of the footbaths studied for the benefit of this

research report. A first variation that is visible is the installation. Farms 1, 5 and 11 all have a built

in footbath, whereas the rest have a footbath that can or be removed instantly or can be removed

relatively easily. There is also a variation in the sides of the footbaths. On some farms these areas

are closed off whereas on others this made of railings. The flooring is more difficult to see but the

baths on farms 1, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 11 all have smooth flooring in the bath. This is metal or concrete.

Farm 4 is a special case that needs to be mentioned separately. This bath has a smooth metal

flooring which is divided by square pipes that are 3x3x3 cm spaced every 18 cm making it one of a

kind to say the least. The baths on farms 2, 6, 8 and 10 have plastic flooring with a small ridging

profile and finally farm 3 is the only farm with a smooth rubber flooring. This farm has another bath

before the effective footbath. This first bath contains the remnants of the products used in the

spray system of the second footbath. This footbath sprays the feet with water and diluted solution

when the cows pass through it.

Figure 13: Footbath farm 1 Figure 14: Footbath farm 2

21



22


Figure 21: Footbath farm 9

23


As can be seen above in the text and figures there is a lot of variation in length, width, and general

design. The design differences are discussed above and the measured are discussed below. The

measured differences can be seen in Table 1 below. As can be compared length wise only two

farms come close to the recommended lengths whereas all other farms have shorter baths. Width

is approximately the same on all farms except for farm 6 and 9 where double the width is attained

by for example placing two baths next to one another as can be seen in Figure 6 and Figure 9. If

the instep is analysed it can be noted that most farms have an instep that is lower than 20 cm. The

instep that comes closest to the recommended 28 cm by Cook (2006) is farm 11. The instep of

farm 5 is a lot higher reaching 42cm.

24

Table 1: Farm footbath dimensions in cm. Length, width and height of instep are noted per farm. Below the average is calculated.

Farm Length (cm) Width (cm) Height of instep

(cm)

Farm 1 215 90 20

Farm 2 200 70 20

Farm 3 310 78 22

Farm 4 200 75 20

Farm 5 350 57 42

Farm 6 200 196 16

Farm 7 200 80 20

Farm 8 200 90 16

Farm 9 250 200 16

Farm 10 190 72 17

Farm 11 375 60 24

Average 244 97 21

4.1.3.2. pH sample analysis

In order to be able to measure the pH, samples were taken approximately every 50 cow

passes. The samples were taken in air tight containers of 25cc to be able to measure the pH when

in the laboratory after collection (Figure 24).

Figure 24: 25cc container used for sampling the footbaths.

Before the pH data can be analysed an overview is necessary of the different farms and what

they use in their footbaths. Table 2 is a summary of the products used and the concentration in

which they were applied. This is compared in the table to the concentrations proposed by the

manufacturers. To calculate these concentrations, the product as a whole was used. For formalin

however the concentration of formaldehyde is calculated and not the liters of formalin necessary.

Due to the variation in percentage of formalin mixtures on the market this calculation is more

accurate. The data in Table 2 shows us that no farmers use the correct dosage for their footbath.

25

Table 2: Footbath content of 11 sampled farms compared to the concentrations required.

Farm Product used Concentration used Concentration required

Farm 1 Pediline, CID Lines 9,4% 3%

Farm 2 MS Formades, MS schippers 0,75% 1,6%

Farm 3 CuSO4 1,5% 2%

ZnSO4 1,5% 20%

Citric acid 1,5% unknown

Farm 4 Pediline, CID Lines 1,75% 3%

Farm 5 4 Hooves, Delaval 1,4% 1%

Farm 6 Digiderm 1,88% 2%

CuSO4 1,88% 2%


CuSO4 2,53% 2%

Farm 8 Oxytetracyclin 1g/l 1-4g/l

Farm 9 MS Formades, MS Schippers 1,8% 1,6%

Farm 10 MS Formades, MS Schippers 2,9% 1,6%

CuSO4 0,22% 2%


CuSO4 1,59% 2%

The pH’s measured on the farms is question are displayed in Figure 25. The X-axis is the

approximate number of cow passes and the Y-axis gives the pH measured at the different

intervals.

26

Figure 25: Evolution of all farm pH’s. The Y-axis shows us the pH of the solution in function of the X-axis

where the number of cow passes is noted.

Figure 25 shows us that there is a lot of variation between the different farms. This variation is

compared between cow passes in Table 3 where the average, standard deviation, minimum and

maximum values of the pH’s are calculated.

Table 3: Average, standard deviation, minimum and maximum of the pH’s measured in relation to the amount of

cow passes.

Parameter calculated 0 25-50 50-60 85-100 100-120 120-140 140-170

Average 3,3 1,8 3,7 4,1 4,0 2,0 2,4

Standard deviation 1,9 0,1 1,6 1,8 1,5 0 1,1

Min 1,6 1,7 1,9 2,1 2,1 2,0 1,7

Max 6,3 1,8 5,3 6,2 5,5 2,0 3,7

This variation in the baths is due to the fact that the products and the management of the

baths differ from farm to farm. Although the products differ if we analyse the graph in Figure 25

more closely we see a pattern in the products used. The pH results can be divided into 2 groups,

the low pH group and the high pH group. To get a better idea of the data, the graph can be divided

according to the active substance used. The components most used are formalin, CuSO4, various

acids, quaternary ammonium compounds, glutaraldehyde and organic acids. Below these will be

discussed separately.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 25-50 50-60 85-100 100-120 120-140 140-170

pH

of

the

cla

w b

ath

Cow passes

Farm 1 Farm 2 Farm 3 Farm 4 Farm 5 Farm 6a Farm 6b

Farm 7a Farm 7b Farm 8 Farm 9 Farm 10 Farm 11

27

Formalin

If we start with the farms using formalin we have Farm 2, 9 and 10 of which the pH is

displayed in Figure 26. The pH trajectories all have the same evolution. They all start with a

relatively high pH which drops after a certain amount of cow passes. It should be mentioned that

as can seen in table 2, farm 10 is the only farm that combines formalin with CuSO4 whereas the

others use formalin alone.

Figure 26: The progress of the pH in baths containing formaldehyde. The Y-axis shows us the pH

of the solution in function of the X-axis where the number of cow passes is noted.

Acids

Acids are often used as biocides in foot baths. The farms that use various acids and their pH

are displayed below in Figure 27. It is clear that there is a big difference between Pediline Pro

(higher pH) and Digiderm (lower pH). Between the Pediline Pro results there is a quantifiable

difference in pH values whereas the Digiderm pH values are similar. The Digiderm pH remains

stable throughout the footbathing session which is desired for long term disinfection and the

continued action of CuSO4.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 25-50 50-60 85-100 100-120 120-140 140-170

pH

of

the

cla

w b

ath

Cow passes

Farm 2 Farm 9 Farm 10

28

Figure 27: The progress of the pH in baths containing various acids. The Y-axis shows us the pH

of the solution in function of the X-axis where the number of cow passes is noted.

Copper Sulphate

Copper sulphate content can be compared as well as seen in Figure 328 (Farm 3, 6, 7 and

11). Copper sulphate is used in combination with acids or formaldehyde. In this research project

Digiderm and copper sulphate are combined most often. As stated above the pH of the solution

needs to be low (<3,8) in order to allow the copper sulphate to work. This can be an issue in Farm

10 where the acidity is not low.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 25-50 50-60 85-100 100-120 120-140 140-170

pH

of

the

cla

w b

ath

Cow passes

Farm 1 Farm 3 Farm 4 Farm 6a

Farm 6b Farm 7a Farm 7b Farm 11

29

Figure 28: The progress of the pH in baths containing Copper sulphate. The Y-axis shows us the

pH of the solution in function of the X-axis where the number of cow passes is noted.

Glutaraldehyde, quaternary ammonium compounds and organic acids

Most recently developed products are a combination of glutaraldehyde, quaternary ammonium

compounds and organic acids. The farms that combine these products (Farm 1, 3, 4 and 5) are

showed below in Figure 29. Farm 1 and have the highest pH values. These farms both use

Pediline Pro. Farm 3 uses a combination with citric acid making it reach a low pH to ensure

disinfection. Farm 5 uses 4Hooves which also has a low pH. All these pH start rising slowly after

50 cow passes.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 25-50 50-60 85-100 100-120 120-140 140-170

pH

of

the

cla

w b

ath

Cow passes

Farm 3 Farm 6a Farm 6b Farm 7a Farm 7b Farm 10 Farm 11

30

Figure 29: The progress of the pH in the baths where glutaraldehyde, quaternary ammonium

compounds or organic acids are used. The Y-axis shows the pH measured and the X-axis contains

the amount of cow passes.

4.1.3.3. Frequency analysis

All the different farms have another footbathing protocol. Table 4 contains a summary of the

footbathing frequencies employed on the farms. Farm 4 only footbaths 3 times a year because

they treat the cattle in the milking pit with a back sprayer every week. All the farmers that leave the

bath for more than one milking do not replace the bath in between footbathing passages. Farm 9

hadn’t used a footbath in a long time and only restarted using it at the beginning of this research

report. The farmer did not yet know which protocol they would use.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 25-50 50-60 85-100 100-120 120-140 140-170

pH

of

the

cla

w b

ath

Cow passes

Farm 1 Farm 3 Farm 4 Farm 5

31

Table 4: Farm footbathing frequency. Every farm has a different footbathing protocol. Every farm

has a cycle in weeks and per week. Weeks is how often they footbath, the period in week shows

how often per week they footbath.

Farm Weeks Period in week

Farm 1 Every week 4 milkings

Farm 2 Three baths in two weeks 36 hours


Farm 4 3 times a year (treated in milking parlour) 1 milking


Farm 6 Every week 24 hours


Farm 8 Every two weeks 2 milkings

Farm 9 Unknown Unknown

Farm 10 Every week 1 milking

Farm 11 Every week Twice a week 2-3 times

4.1.3.4. Behaviour analysis

To analyse the behaviour of the cows properly the cows were filmed in action when walking

through their respective footbaths. The different behaviours mentioned in the definitions will be

analysed one by one. A summary of the behaviours per response as well as the percentages of

the behaviour occurring on all farms can be found in Table 5 below. Table 5 also contains the

percentage of the farms on which the behaviour occurs.

Hesitation

The first is hesitation behaviour. Hesitation is divided into 3 categories. No hesitation,

hesitation for more than five seconds and hesitation for less than five seconds. Hesitation is a

phenomenon that occurs on all farms however there is a lot of variation. This behaviour was

greatly influenced by the farmers when the cows passed through the foot baths. Some farmers did

little to nothing to motivate their cattle when they passed through the baths, whereas others had to

use motivation ranging from slight interference to brute force to get the cattle to pass through the

bath. For this reason the farms were divided into two groups. The farms were help was given and

the ones where there was no help.

The first farms discussed are showed in Figure 30. These are the farms where the farmer

intervened with the passage of the cows through the footbath. The cows on farm 4 needed a lot of

brute force before they went into the footbath. This is most probably due to the fact that, as stated

above, the cows are not used to passing through a footbath. The flooring of this specific bath was

also not ideal making it difficult to navigate for the cattle. The three possible behavioural traits are

32

evenly divided on this farm however if the cows had been left alone not many would have passed

voluntarily. The percentage of cattle hesitating is 67% in total of which more than half hesitated for

more than 5 seconds. This time would have been well extended if the cows had not been handled

individually. On farm 5 the cows needed very little extra motivation to go into the footbath. This

footbath was well designed but the environment was too dark to allow for good visibility. To allow

for proper filming an extra light was needed which resulted in shadow formation at the bath

entrance. This resulted in 16,7% of the cows hesitating for more than 5 seconds. The farmer

intervened from time to time although no excessive strength was needed. Farm 6 and 11’s

footbath gave little to no hesitation. Although the farmer helped, his help was solely to bring the

cows closer to the footbath itself. This farm lets the cows pass through the bath during the day at a

random moment that is not linked to milking. Once installed the bath remains in the stable for 24 to

36 hours. Farm 9 also showed a 36,7% more than 5 second hesitation rate. On this farm a lot of

motivation was also needed.

Figure 30: Hesitation behaviour for the farms where help was given by the farmer to help the cows

go through the footbath. Hesitation can be nonexistent, can be less than 5 seconds or can be

more than 5 seconds. The percentages of the occurring behaviours on the farms in question are

compared in this graph. The Y-axis shows the percentage of the behaviour in question and the X-

axis shows us on which farm this occurred.

Figure 31 shows the farms where the cows needed no help passing through the bath. An

exception was made from time to time but this was not general practice. These are farms where

footbathing occurs often and the cows know the process. There is some variation present by farm

2 comes out the clear winner with regards to little hesitation. A summary of the percentages of this

behaviour on farm level and on all the farms can be found in Table 5 below.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Hesitation

less 5 more 5 no

33

Figure 31: Hesitation behaviour for the farms where little or no help was given by the farmer to

help the cows walk through the bath. This hesitation can be nonexistent, be less than 5 seconds

or be more than 5 seconds. The percentages of these values are compared in the graph showed

in this figure. The Y-axis shows the percentage of the behaviour in question and the X-axis shows

us on which farm this occurred.

Defecation

Defecation occurs very seldom in the bath according to this research report. When cows did

defecate it was before or during passage through the bath. Generally, very few cows defecated in

the baths whilst passing through them. If they did defecate it was when leading up to the bath,

often when the farmer pressured the cow to go faster. Only one cow in 1004 defecated directly

after leaving the bath whereas 36 defecated before the bath and continued to do so as they

walked through it. No cows urinated during this research study. This data can be seen in Table 5.

Jumping in

Jumping in occurs very seldom but needs to be noted though because it could result in injury.

Not all farms had incidents of cows jumping into the bath. The farms where this did occur are

farms 4, 5, 9 and 11. The occurrence per farm or on all farms in total can be seen in Table 5. Of

the four farms where jumping occurred three were the farms where the cows did not want to enter

the footbath and the farmer had to help. In total 13 cows out of 1004 jumped into the bath placing

this occurrence at 1,3%. This is not a lot but because of the consequences should be avoided.

Remaining stationary for >5 seconds

Remaining stationary in the footbaths does not occur very often but clearly on some farms

more than on others as can be seen in Figure 32. When the cows were milked in a carousel like

on farm 3 the cows had time to remain standing if they wished to do so showing they are relaxed

in this context. It can be deduced from this graph that the cows most often remained standing in

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Farm 1 Farm 2 Farm 3 Farm 7 Farm 8 Farm 10

Hesitation

less 5 more 5 no

34

the bath were the farms where no help was given to the cows which implies that the process

occurred more calmly making the cows not fear the footbath. This implies they are comfortable

with the bath. The cows that most often remained standing were the last ones in a milking series

with no other cow coming for a certain amount of time which gave them time to remain standing

with no exterior pressure. Table 5 summarizes the data between the different farms.

Figure 32: Cows remaining stationary for more than 5 seconds whilst passing through a foot bath

Sniffing

Sniffing is a behaviour that occurs very often on all farms except for farm 5 and farm 6 as can

be seen in Figure 33. This is behaviour is executed as a way for the cows to explore their

surroundings and detect eventual threats. At least 18% of cows stop to smell the roses so to

speak, this number would be higher if the cows would be allowed to pass through the bath at their

own speed. This behaviour, which leads to hesitation, is disliked by farmers because it leads to a

decrease in productivity and efficacy of the footbathing process which could lead to a traffic jam in

the milking parlour.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Remaining stationary for >5 seconds

no yes

35

Figure 33: Sniffing behaviour. This behaviour occurs before or during the passage through the

bath. All farms are compared by their respective percentage of occurrence. The Y-axis shows the

percentage of the behaviour in question and the X-axis shows us on which farm this occurred.

Hopping out

Hopping out of the footbath behaviour occurred most on farm 4 with an occurrence percentage

of 39,7% as shown in Figure 34. This number being astronomical because hopping out behaviour,

like jumping in, should be avoided because the cows could slip and injure themselves. Farm 5’s

hopping out behaviour was unable to be evaluated due to bad lighting and camera angles which

were unable to be realised. The farms where the occurrence of this behaviour was highest,

namely farm 4 and farm 9 are the farms where the most help was needed by the farmer.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sniffing

no yes

36

Figure 34: Hopping out behaviour is not common in general but farm 4 and farm 9 have a high

frequency in comparison to the other farms. These values are expressed as a percentage of the

total occurrence per farm. The Y-axis shows the percentage of the behaviour in question and the

X-axis shows us on which farm this occurred.

Drinking

Drinking occurred only on two farms. The first cows passing through were the only ones who

had a drink of the bath. In total this gives us a total of 2 out of 849 cows. All the other farms did not

have an occurrence of drinking behaviour. Even though this behaviour is very seldom it must be

avoided at all cost because the chemicals used are toxic.

Raising tail

Tail raising behaviour occurs very often when a cow walks through a foot bath. It is as if they

are almost trying to keep their tail dry. It occurs in 40% of all cows filmed in this research report.

There is a variation on the different farms filmed but it is unclear to what this variation can be

linked.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Hopping out

no yes

37

Figure 35: Raising the tail when walking through a footbath is a behaviour that occurs very often

on all farms. This can be present or not in every individual. These percentages are shown on the

Y-axis in relation to the X-axis that holds the farms.

Summary

Table 5 is a summary of the behaviours discussed above. Every behaviour and its possible

response is stated separately and the absolute number of cows showing this behaviour is noted

under the heading “Amount of cows”. The column “% on farm” is the total percentage of this

behaviour occurring on all farms together. For example 64,24% of all cows in this study did not

hesitate when entering the bath. The percentages in the column “% of farms” are the percentages

of the amount of farms where the behaviour occurs. For example on 90% of farms hesitation for

more than 5 seconds occurs whereas defecation after the bath only occurs on 10% of the farms

studied.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Raising tail

no yes

38

Table 5: Summary of behaviours and their response compared first to the absolute amount of

cows that showed each behaviour followed by the percentage of this response on a farm level

counting in all the farms. Finally the percentage of this behaviour is showed on how often it occurs

on the farms.

Behaviour Response Amount of

cows

% on farm % of farms

Hesitation No 645 64,24% 100%

< 5 sec 214 21,31% 100%

> 5 sec 145 14,44% 90%

Defecation No 967 96,31% 82%

Before & in 36 3,59% 18%

After 1 0,10% 10%

Jumping in No 991 97,71% 63,6%

Yes 13 1,29% 36,4%

Remaining stationary No 927 7,67% 10%

Yes 77 92,33% 90%

Sniffing No 817 87,37% 10%

Yes 187 18,63% 90%

Hopping out No 878 87,45% 27%

Yes 60 5,98% 73%

Drinking No 1002 98,80% 82%

Yes 2 0,20% 18%

Tail raising No 598 59,65% 0%

Yes 406 40,44%% 100%

4.1.3.5. Relations between behaviour and footbath design

After having analyzed the design of the footbaths and the behaviour separately, the next step

is to see if there is any common ground between these two separate entities. The first link

evaluated in Figure 36 is the type of flooring in the footbath and influence on hesitation behaviour.

On the farms three types of flooring were found. Smooth floors out of concrete, plastic or metal.

Ribbed floors are usually made of plastic. One specific floor needs to be mentioned, the flooring in

farm 4. This floor, which is referred to as pipes, is smooth metal but is divided every 18 cm by a

square pipe op 3x3x3 cm. Hesitation, as stated above has three possible outcomes. No hesitation,

hesitation for less than 5 seconds and hesitation for more than 5 seconds.

39

Figure 36: The relationship between the type of flooring in the footbath and hesitation by the cows.

The flooring is showed on the X-axis and is smooth, ribbed or is made up of pipes. Hesitation

behaviour percentages can be found on the Y-axis where there are three possible categories. No

hesitation, hesitation of less than 5 seconds and hesitation of 5 seconds.

If Figure 36 is examined closely it can be seen that a smooth floor has a smaller total of

hesitation, and this hesitation is mostly less than 5 seconds. If this is compared to the pipes floor

hesitation has an extremely high occurrence. The ribbed floor comes out between the two other

flooring types although closer to the smooth flooring than to the pipes floor. It should be noted that

the “pipes” flooring belongs to farm 4 where as mentioned above there was a lot of farmer

interference which makes other hesitation behaviour parameters tainted. For this reason farm 4

will not be used in the two following discussed relationships between bath design and behaviour.

Hesitation being an important behavioural trait was also compared to the width of the different

footbaths. For this the measured widths on the farms were divided into different categories. These

are 57-60 cm, 70-72 cm, 78-80 cm, 90 cm and 196-200 cm as can be seen in Figure 37. From the

figure we can deduce that the highest occurrence of hesitation, more and less than 5 seconds, is

in the baths that are in the 196-200 cm category. The 70-72 cm and the 90cm baths have the

smallest occurrence of hesitation but the 90 cm bath does induce more “more than 5 second”

hesitation than the other narrower baths. The narrowest baths, which can be found in category 57-

60 cm, have a higher total of hesitation although this is lower than the 78-80cm category.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

smooth ribbed pipes

no

more > 5

less < 5

40

Figure 37: Hesitation (Y-axis) compared to the width of the footbaths in cm examined (X-axis).

Hesitation can either be less than 5 seconds, more than 5 seconds or not present. The width of

the footbaths has been divided into different categories namely 57-60 cm, 70-72 cm, 78-80 cm, 90

cm and 196-200 cm

Figure 38 shows the relationship between hesitation and the height of the bath instep. The

instep has been divided into different height parameters. Less than 20 cm, between 20-22 cm, 24

cm and 42 cm are the different possible parameters. It is clear that to lowest and the highest baths

induce the most hesitation behaviour, of which a large portion hesitates for more than 5 seconds.

The footbath with an instep of 24 cm, which is the closest to the suggested height according to

research results in the least hesitation and the “more than 5 second” hesitation is also lower than

the “less than 5 second” result. It should be noted that the 20-22 cm instep, although it does lead

to a lot of hesitation, the hesitation in itself is shorter.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

57-60 70-72 78-80 90 196-200

no

more > 5

less < 5

41

Figure 38: Hesitation (Y-axis) compared to the height of the bath instep (X-axis). Hesitation can

either be less than 5 seconds, more than 5 seconds or not present. The different heights of instep

have been divided into different categories. Less than 20 cm high, between 20-22 cm high, 24 cm

high and 42 cm high.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

<20 20-22 24 42

no

more > 5

less < 5

42

DISCUSSION

We can conclude with certainty that footbathing is not an exact science. There is a lot of

variation in research methodologies which results in a lot of variation in research results. Footbath

management on a farm to farm basis also varies enormously making it difficult to analyse the

management system in a standardized fashion but an attempt has been made in the present

study.

Infectious claw disorders are becoming more and more important as farms expand and as a

consequence cows are more and more held in zero-grazing management systems. Lameness

should for this reason be at the top of the list of afflictions that need to be monitored closely in a

herd. A lame cow will rest less, will eat irregular amounts and at irregular times. All of this may

result in metabolic issues which will eventually have an influence on milk production, reproductive

performance and a reduction in animal welfare. For example, cows will not show clear signs of

oestrus like jumping on one another due to lameness and the fear of hurting themselves. This will

make oestrus detection more difficult for the farmer and will hamper cows to be inseminated at the

correct time making lameness and its consequences to turn into a vicious cycle. As could be seen

in the literature review part of this thesis the bacteria causing these infections are mostly similar.

Luckily this aids us in the disinfection process because we do not have to cover wide spectrum

with our disinfectant. For this type of prevention most farms have one or other method of foot

disinfection. This can be a back sprayer used to spray the feet individually for example in the

milking parlour or a footbath which allows a group treatment. The latter is analysed in the present

research report. As stated above, an integrated approach is needed to control infectious claw

disorders and footbathing is one of the links in this chain. To allow footbathing to happen without

too much distress for both the cows and the farmers, while still remaining economic and efficient,

a good management protocol is needed. The elements that need to be taken into account are the

design and layout of the bath itself, the solution used to disinfect the feet and the frequency by

which the solution needs to be used and replaced.

The design of the footbaths encountered during the present study is clearly wildly variable.

Most farmers use prefabricated baths they can place in the cow’s walking path, most often when

leaving the milking parlour. The problem with these baths is that their durability is limited, they are

not ergonomically friendly for the farmer, the cost is high and often their dimensions are incorrect.

First the flooring of these baths is usually plastic with a slight ridging which the cows do not like.

According to Burgi (2010), a non slip floor is preferable. Farm 4 is the farm that deviates most from

these requirements where the specifics are discussed above. The pipes that divide this floor make

it very difficult to navigate and result in massive protest from the cows (Annex II, video farm 4).

This results, as can be seen in figure 36, in a lot of hesitation, making the intervention of the

farmer necessary. In Figure 36 it is furthermore clear that cows prefer smooth flooring which is in

agreement with research. A ribbed floor seems to not be disastrous but the ridging should be as

slight as possible and preferably avoided altogether and a smooth floor used. The “pipes” floor

should not be in use. The problem with this footbath protocol is not only the bath itself but the

footbathing frequency of 2-3 times a year. This means the cows are not used to this process and it

43

forms a source of stress for them, of which the same can be said for farm 9. On farm 4 the cows

are treated in the milking parlour with a back sprayer every week. The question in this case is if it

wouldn’t be better to leave the additional footbath out as one of their preventive measures It has

also been shown in research that cows prefer to walk through a solid walled pathway which is

often not the case (5/11 footbaths have an open side). The dimensions themselves also need to

be taken into consideration. Suggested dimensions are 3 – 3,7 m in length according to Cook

(2012) but in our study only 3/11 baths are longer than the minimum required length to result in a

sufficient number of foot immersions. The same can be said for the height of the instep which

according to Cook (2012) should be 28 cm in order to prevent solution waste and maximise the

amount of foot immersions. The average instep height of the footbaths we have seen is 22 cm.

The highest instep measured in this report is 42 cm and the lowest is 16 cm. These are very far

from the recommended height. Only farm 11 comes close with 24 cm. The influence of this can be

seen in Figure 38. The lowest hesitation levels are seen in the farm with a 24 cm instep. The 20-

22 cm insteps have shorter hesitation but in total approximately the same percentage of cows

hesitate making it not a lot better than the other two extremes.

The farms where footbathing occurs outside the milking schedule should also be mentioned.

Farm 9 does this because they found that they had more trouble getting the cows into the milking

parlour when they had to go through a footbath at the other end. This makes it clear these cows in

particular would be prepared to give up being milked before they would go through a footbath

willingly. This raises questions about the footbath management. Are the cows simply not used to

passing through the bath or do they fear it. Farm 6 and 11 on the other hand did the footbathing

independently from the milking process because it allowed the farmer to let the animals pass

through the bath several times after one another to allow for maximum disinfection. The passage

through bath 11 is extremely smooth which indicated it is well designed, the cows are used to it

and do not mind passing through it. Farm 8 also needs to be mentioned separately for the method

they used to accustom the cows to walk through the footbath. They used the innate nature of the

cows to their advantage. First the alleyway that leads away from the milking parlour to the bath

has closed walls which the cows prefer. Second in the beginning the farmer would dim the lights

as to make the cows want to walk towards the light at the end of the tunnel. This resulted in

smooth footbathing since the beginning. This is in contrast with farm 5. They have a very well

designed footbath but due to barn renovations the lighting conditions are poor. The latter makes

the footbath a dark tunnel, with shadows through which they have to walk, with an enormous in-

step of 42 cm making them more resilient as can be seen in Figure 38. The width of the footbaths

was also brought into relation with hesitation. Figure 37 could give the wrong impression that wide

baths make the cows hesitate more. This data is distorted by the findings on farm 9. As stated

above, these cows are not used to footbathing which made them unenthusiastic to say the least to

pass through this footbath. The width of 70-72 cm seems to be the most appreciated by the cows

in this study. Authors such as Cook (2012) and Burgi (2010) agree that width is not of outmost

importance but that it should be along the lines of 60 cm with widening walls to allow large cows to

pass.

44

The solutions used in the footbaths are obviously of outmost importance because it’s the

solution that has to ensure the disinfection of the feet. Finding concrete information on this subject

was challenging. Most research articles compare different products with different footbathing

frequencies. This makes it difficult to analyse the data in an objective and standardized manner. In

general it is accepted that the more often you footbath the better, but there is a limit. The

excessive use of footbaths can be harmful to the feet and the cost of footbathing becomes very

high if executed all too often. The use of CuSO4 for example may bring environmental problems

that need to be taken into account. Leg hygiene as well as the infectious pressure on the cows all

need to be taken into account to find the balance necessary on a farm to farm basis. What can be

done on the farm itself is keeping a record of the occurrence of lameness as well as a record of

the lesions present and how they evolve when foot trimming sessions have been held. This will

allow the farmer to have an idea of the evolution of the lesions and alter his prevention and

curative protocol if necessary. In short, a good protocol needs to be established and management

practices need to be carried out as directed to have good results. If directions are not followed the

process is moot. From the data collected it is however clear that not one farmer out of the ones

questioned, doses correctly. There is always a problem with the estimation of the content of their

bath. For example they have a bath of 200 litres so they will dose for this amount. However they

forget that this bath is not entirely full, this resulting in an overdosing of the product used. In our

study however, most doses applied by the farmers were too low making the point of their footbaths

irrelevant. The incorrect dosing could be due to overestimation of their footbath volume, which

also applies for the replacement of solutions. The faulty dosing of the solutions needs to be taken

care of in time otherwise the bath becomes a bacterial haven and will instead of reducing the

infectious pressure result in the spread of infections. The bad habit that these farmers have is that

they tend to leave their solutions in place for too long periods of time. The only farmer who

empties and subsequently refills the bath adding a fresh amount of disinfectant replacing it after

each use is farmer 11.

To have an idea about how the solutions in the footbaths evolve when in use, the pH was

measured. As mentioned above, there is a lot of variation in the bath pHs measured. First to

mention are the findings in Table 2. As already stated, not a single farmer doses his footbath

correctly. The farmers should be better informed as to dose their footbaths correctly. If the

footbath is not dosed correctly, there is no point in footbathing. A striking finding found between

farm 1 and farm 4. Farm 1 overdoses on Pediline Pro massively and farm 4 underdoses by almost

half the required amount, but the pH levels measured on farm 1 were a lot higher. This could be

explained because on farm 4 there are a multitude of people working in the barn and another

person than the one who milks, is supposed to prepare the footbath. These findings make us

assume that the footbath was not cleaned out before use and that the old solution remained in the

bath for the subsequent footbathing session. This is a clear example of mismanagement due to a

lack of communication which should be avoided at all cost and not only in the case of footbathing.

The general trend of the pHs measured, is that they start at a certain value and will rise as the

bath becomes contaminated with organic material. We have found one exception. The formalin in

45

farm 2’s footbath takes a pH dive after a certain amount of passages. The only way to explain this

strange evolution is the stirring of the solution by the cows passing. The importance of mixing the

solution well before use is clearly illustrated in this example. A similar evolution can be seen mildly

in all solutions containing formalin (Figure 26). In our study, copper sulphate was usually mixed

with Digiderm, except for one farm where it is mixed with formalin. This last mixture is moot with

regard to the activity of CuSO4 because the pH of the solution is too high (<3,8 is best) to allow

copper to be active (Hoofbathtender, 2015). The dosage of copper sulphate is in this case also too

low. Digiderm combined with copper sulphate on the other hand performs well. This solution

remains stable at a pH around 2. This is extremely low but according to the manufacturers this

solution is safe for humans and animals even at this acidity level. This pH is also ideal to keep the

copper sulphate in its active form. It is clear that this solution is not easily deactivated by organic

material that is inserted in the bath by the cows passing. The problem with this method is that on

some occasions sampling every 50 animals proved to be difficult as well as the fact that

participating herds were relatively small. It would be interesting to examine the evolution of the

solutions after more cow passes. Furthermore, these samples were taken on one footbathing

occasion. To gain a more accurate view of footbathing on the farm, a long term follow up would be

ideal where samples are taken on numerous occasions and the cows’ feet are examined at certain

intervals to study the evolution of the lesions.

In the course of this research report some very interesting behavioural traits were noticed and

some others seemed to be less important than expected. Hesitation is the first behaviour that is

discussed. This occurs on almost all farms but in variable frequency. Hesitation is best avoided

because it disrupts the flow of the footbathing process, although it should be tolerated if it takes

less than 5 seconds. The problem on some of the farms, as shown in Figure 30, is that help is

given to the cows to make them go through the footbath faster. The latter distorts the hesitation

data. This is most prominent in farm 4. It was very clear here that the cows did not want to pass

through this bath. Examples can be seen on videos on the USB in Annex II. Unfortunately brute

force had to be used to get the cows to pass through the bath. In comparison to other farms, the

hesitation is quite high but this would have been even higher if the cows had not been interfered

with. The remarkable case of hesitation at farm 4 was due to the bad design of the bath as well as

to the fact that the cows are not used to the process and obviously associate it with something

unpleasant. Hesitation is usually paired with sniffing. This occurs on all farms by a high number of

cows. Sniffing is for the cows a way to explore their new surroundings and evaluate potential

threats. Once the cow has sniffed her surroundings, she or decides to walk into the footbath slowly

or will decide to double back. When a farmer interferes too quickly, usually cows will double back

and will refuse to pass through the bath. A certain balance is needed to allow the cows to go

through the bath freely and wasting time due to sniffing behaviour. Maybe if the cows were

allowed to display this behaviour, in the long run they would learn that the footbath does not pose

any threat and pass more easily. The latter necessitates a certain time investment on the farmer’s

behalf. Remaining stationary in the bath is also a behaviour that seems to illustrate a certain

46

relaxation in the animal. During this expression of behaviour, the cows were calm and relaxed.

This could mean that these cows enjoy the footbath. According to the literature, also defecation is

a behaviour that is very important, although it did not occur often in our study. This could be due to

the fact that most of the baths were too short and hence did not allow enough time for defecation.

Remarkably in our study, defecation most often occurred prior to the bathing. This occurred

especially on farm 9 where the farmer intervened to force the cows to pass through the bath. This

illustrates defecation to be a stress response to the extra pressure. Due to these findings it could

be suggested that the majority of the footbath contamination originates from the faeces on the feet

and not from defecation or urination in the bath. Jumping in and hopping out are both behaviours

that should be avoided. Figure 36 is an example of the consequences of what can happen if a cow

tries to exit the footbath too quickly. Jumping in does not occur often but needs to be avoided

because it could cause serious injury. Hopping out as well, but the concomitant risks are lower

because the flooring outside the bath is often less slippery than the badly adapted flooring in the

bath, making the landing safer on the way out than on the way in. It is also clear from our data that

hopping out occurs more often in bath 4 that is corruptly adapted. Drinking is another behaviour

that occurred only twice in the entire study. This is not of great importance on a large scale but

should not occur because of the toxicity of the agents used. This only happened with the first cow

entering the bath and only when the bath was clean and contained copper sulphate, making the

bath looking like liquid bubblegum. The colour aspect of this solution seems to be interesting for

the cows. The behavioural trait that occurred on all farms relatively often is the raising of the tail.

This almost looks like the cows do not want to get their tails and udders wet but unfortunately all

they can lift is their tails. However, to get a clearer idea of what this means more research is

necessary.

On the farms mentioned in this report only lactating cows got footbathed. This management

decision should be altered because not only cows in lactation have lameness issues. Lameness

problems start with the young stock and will not diminish during the dry-off period. Cows should

also be treated carefully when stimulated to go through a footbath. Interference can be necessary

but should remain civil otherwise accidents can happen. An example can be seen on the USB

drive (Annex II) and in Figure 39. The most important take home message though is to dose

correctly and make the footbaths as animal friendly as possible. Passage will occur in a smooth

manner if the bath is well designed, the cows well taught and infectious diseases will be best

prevented if the solutions are dosed and managed correctly. For this reason it is important to

motivate farmers to follow manufacturers’ suggested dosages and ask for advice regarding the

design of footbaths be it from a veterinarian or a colleague farmer, however the information should

be constructive. To sum up however it should be mentioned that this research report consisted

only of a small sample group. To get a clearer idea of behavioural and management issues on a

larger scale a larger group of farmers and more standardised methods of research are necessary.

For example the hygiene scoring of the legs and the evolution of the feet could be followed over

time. This could result in results that could aid the farmers to better manage the lameness on their

farm and hopefully help them in monitoring this themselves in a correct manner in the long run.

47

Figure 39: Cow falling into footbath due to bad design

48

REFERENCES

Archer, S. C., Green, M. J., Huxley, J. N. (2010). Association between somatic cell count and

serial locomotion score assessments in UK dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 94, 4045–

4053.

BCFI (2014). Gecommentarieerd geneesmiddelen repertorium voor diergeneeskundig

gebruik. Belgisch centrum voor farmacotherapeutische informatie. www.bcfi-vet.be.

Burgi, K. (2010). Managing a Footbath Successfully. Dairyland Hoof Care Institute Inc.,

January, 1–3.

Cid Lines (2015). Cid Lines website. Internet reference: http://www.cidlines.com/nl-

nl/135/14/263/pedilinepro.html (Consulted on 31 march 2015).

Cook, N. B. (2006). Footbath alternatives. Hoards West. April, 68–69.

Cook, N. B., Rieman, J., Gomez, A., Burgi, K. (2012). Observations on the design and use of

footbaths for the control of infectious hoof disease in dairy cattle. The Veterinary Journal, 193,

669–673.

De Laval (2015). De Laval website. Internet reference: http://www.delaval.com/en/-/Product-

Information1/Animal-comfort--care/Products/Hoof-care/Consumables/4Hooves/ (Consulted on

31 march 2015).

Digiderm (2015). Digiderm website. Internet reference: http://www.digiderm.nl/ (Consulted on

31 march 2015).

Enting, H., Kooij, D., Dijkhuizen, A. A., Huirne, R. B. M., Noordhuizen-Stassen, E. N. (1997).

Economic losses due to clinical lameness in dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science, 49,

259–267.

Gestis (2015). GESTIS substance database. Internet reference: www.dguv.de/ifa/gestis-

database (Consulted on 27 march 2015).

Green, L. E., Hedges, V. J., Schukken, Y. H., Blowey, R. W., Packington, A. J. (2002). The

impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 85,

2250–2256.

Holzhauer, M., Bartels, C. J., Bergsten, C., Riet, M. M. J. Van, Frankena, K., Lam, T. J. G. M.

(2012). The effect of an acidified , ionized copper sulphate solution on digital dermatitis in

dairy cows. The Veterinary Journal, 193, 659–663.

Holzhauer, M., Hardenberg, C., Bartels, C. J. M., Frankena, K. (2006). Herd- and cow-level

prevalence of digital dermatitis in the Netherlands and associated risk factors. Journal of Dairy

Science, 89, 580–588.

Hoofbath Tender (2015). Internet reference:

http://www.hoofbathtender.com/index.php/component/content/article/8-hoof-disease/30-

chemical-treatments (Consulted 31 march 2015).

Ilvo, (2013), Melkvee en Klauwgezondheid, 70, Vlaamse overheid, Landbwouw en Visserij,

18-25.

Logue, D. N., Gibert, T., Parkin, T., Thomson, S., Taylor, D. J. (2012). A field evaluation of a

footbathing solution for the control of digital dermatitis in cattle. The Veterinary Journal, 193,

664–668.

PubChem (2015). The PubChem Project. Internet reference:

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (Consulted 25 march 2015)

Ross, A. D. (1983). Formalin and footrot in sheep. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 31, 170–

172.

Schippers (2015). MS Schippers Website. Internet reference:

http://www.schippers.be/nl/rundvee/product-in-voetbad (Consulted on 11 april 2015).

Smith, A. C., Wood, C. L., Mcquerry, K. J., Bewley, J. M. (2014). Effect of a tea tree oil and

organic acid footbath solution on digital dermatitis in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 97,

2498–2501.

49

Smith B. P. (2015). Large Animal Internal Medicine, 5th edition, Elsevier, Missouri, 1200-1202.

Speijers, M. H. M., Finney, G. A., Mcbride, J., Watson, S., Logue, D. N., Connell, N. E. O.

(2012). Effectiveness of different footbathing frequencies using copper sulfate in the control of

digital dermatitis in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 95, 2955–2964.

Teixeira, A. G. V, Machado, V. S., Caixeta, L. S., Pereira, R. V, Bicalho, R. C. (2010). Efficacy

of formalin , copper sulfate , and a commercial footbath product in the control of digital

dermatitis. Journal of Dairy Science, 93, 3628–3634.

Thomsen, P. T., Sørensen, J. T., Ersbøll, A. K. (2008). Evaluation of Three Commercial Hoof-

Care Products Used in Footbaths in Danish Dairy Herds. Journal of Dairy Science, 91, 1361–

1365.

Van Aert, M. (2009). Behandeling van de ziekte van Mortellaro. Internet reference:

http://www.buitenpraktijk.ugent.be/v2/singlepages/artikelenarchief/artikelenrund/behandelingm

ortellaro.pdf (Consulted on 3 march 2015).

Legislation

European Regulation (EC) No 528/2012 of 22 may 2012 of the European Parliament and the

Council concerning the offer on the market and use of biocides.

i

ADDENDUM

Annex I: Footbathing protocol

Protocol Footbaths

Number of lactating cows

Dimensions

Length of footbath

Width of footbath

Instep footbath

Floortype in footbath

Height of solution beginning

Total volume begin

Floortype before footbath

Floortype after footbath

Height of solution end

Total volume end

Active substance

Copper sulphate

Formalin concentration

Other products used

Time before solution change

Amount of cows before solution change

pH cow 0

pH cow 50

pH cow 100

pH cow 150

Colour before

Colour after

Clarity of solution before

Clarity of solution after

Manner of dosing footbath

Manner of cleaning footbath

Amount of footbathing per week

Manner of walking through

Amount of immersions back legs

Amount of immersions front legs

Hesitation

Amount of legs outside of bath

Other behaviour: see film

Annex II: USB

GHENT UNIVERSITY Academic year 2014-2015

Documents

Transcript of GHENT UNIVERSITY Academic year 2014-2015