Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Figure 15: Footbath farm 3 Figure 16: Footbath farm 4
Figure 17: Footbath farm 5 Figure 18: Footbath farm 6
22
Figure 19: Footbath farm 7 Figure 20: Footbath farm 8
Figure 21: Footbath farm 9
23
Figure 22: Footbath farm 10 Figure 23: Footbath farm 11
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%
Farm 7 Digiderm 2,53% 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%
Farm 11 Digiderm 1,59% 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 3 Every week 2 milkings
Farm 4 3 times a year (treated in milking parlour) 1 milking
Farm 5 Every week 2 milkings
Farm 6 Every week 24 hours
Farm 7 Every week 2 milkings
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