Next Article in Journal
Interactive Effects of Soil Water, Nutrients and Clonal Fragmentation on Root Growth of Xerophilic Plant Stipa breviflora
Next Article in Special Issue
Ruminal Solubility and Bioavailability of Inorganic Trace Mineral Sources and Effects on Fermentation Activity Measured in Vitro
Previous Article in Journal
RNA-Interference-Mediated Aphid Control in Crop Plants: A Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/agriculture12122109
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Associations of Lameness with Indicators of Nitrogen Metabolism and Excretion in Dairy Cows

by
Daniel-Catalin Necula
1,2,*,
Helen Elizabeth Warren
1,
Jules Taylor-Pickard
1,
Eliza Simiz
2 and
Lavinia Stef
2,*
1
Alltech Bioscience Centre, A86 X006 Dunboyne, Ireland
2
Faculty of Bioengineering of Animal Resources, University of Life Sciences King Michael I from Timisoara, 300645 Timisoara, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2022, 12(12), 2109; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12122109
Submission received: 4 November 2022 / Revised: 3 December 2022 / Accepted: 6 December 2022 / Published: 9 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Biotechnological Developments in Agriculture)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of lameness on nitrogen (N) metabolism and excretion. Two treatment groups of 20 multiparous Holstein–Friesian dairy cows were included in study; the control group consisted of cows with locomotion score ≤2, while the experimental group consisted of cows with locomotion scores 3 and 4. Fodder, milk, feces, and urine were collected to determine nitrogen emissions. The milk yield, the energy-corrected milk, the fat and protein yield were higher for lame animals compare with non-lame cows. Differences were also detected in the milk urea nitrogen (MUN) between groups where lame cows had a 15% lower MUN than non-lame animals. Urine volume was lower (p < 0.008), while urinary creatinine concentration was higher (p < 0.05) in lame animals compare with those in the non-lame group. Consequently, the creatinine/urea ratio was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the lame vs. no-lame animals. Nitrogen excretion in milk was higher (p = 0.008) and N in urine was lower (p < 0.001) in the lame compared to non-lame cows with lower urinary N emissions in lame animals. Taken together, our results show that urinary creatinine concentration and urinary creatinine/urea ratio have the potential to be used as a tool for lameness detection.

1. Introduction

Nitrogen (N) emission from livestock production is a global concern that accounts for one-third of human-induced nitrogen emissions globally [1]. Ruminants are not very efficient in converting N into milk or meat and account for almost 71% of total livestock N emissions [1]. Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE = N excreted in milk/N intake) in dairy cows varies from 15 to 35% with the remainder excreted into the environment via feces and urine [2,3]. This excreted N contributes to air pollution, acidification and eutrophication of land and water, which negatively affects biodiversity [4,5]. The main factors that impact NUE are represented by both nutritional and management factors, but also by animal-related factors, such as body weight and genetic factors [6,7].
The rapid development of intensive dairy farming to sustain the high demand for animal products led to the introduction of these animals into environments different to their natural habitat, resulting in consequences for their welfare [8]. Lameness is a multifactorial condition and one of the most important welfare problems in the dairy industry [9]. It is considered one of the costliest conditions and a principal reason for culling [10,11,12]. The main negative implications for health and productive performance are a decrease in milk production, impairment of reproduction, as well as an increase in culling rate [13]. The median prevalence varies, within countries and regions, from 5 to 25% due to both extrinsic factors, but also to the infrastructure that farmers have for the timely detection and correction of this condition [14,15].
Earlier studies have shown that lameness induces behavioral changes related to feeding, rumination and resting [16,17,18,19]. These include long rest periods leading to increased time between feedings and ultimately increasing ruminal pH. The increase in ruminal pH for longer periods has a negative effect on the rumen lactate-utilizing bacteria population, increasing the risk of ruminal acidosis [20]. Additionally, stress associated with lameness can directly affect the normal functioning of the rumen via depression of the central nervous centers that control rumination as a result of elevated cortisol levels found in animals with foot diseases [21,22]. All these changes may disrupt the rumen microflora affecting overall NUE and N excretion. Our study aimed to investigate if direct measurements of metabolic parameters can be an additional tool to assess the impact of lameness on N metabolism and excretion in dairy cows.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Location and Animals

The study was conducted in a commercial farm (SC Koplax SRL-44.7951, 26.0745) as a feeding trial, with no experimental license required in the absence of invasive procedures. Routine veterinary inspection was carried out by a local district assigned veterinary clinician. Twenty, multiparous Holstein–Friesian dairy cows were randomly allocated to one of two treatment groups: experimental (EG; locomotion score 3–4) and control (CG; locomotion score ≤2) based on parity, days in milk, and milk production. The animals were housed in two pens in a free housing system, each pen measuring 25 m by 10 m, providing a space of 25 m2/animal. Each pen was equipped with two drinkers that provided 52 cm of drinking space per animal and a feed trough that provided feed space of 120 cm per animal. The number of animals included in this study were decided following advice from a statistician and from the local veterinary practician and the animal welfare adviser.
Ten cows allocated to the EG (5 cows 2nd and 5 cows 3rd lactation, average bodyweight 604 ± 55 kg, 159 ± 31 days in milk, 40.8 ± 5.5 kg milk production and locomotion score 3–4) were housed in one pen, while 10 cows allocated to the CG (5 cows 2nd and 5 cows 3rd lactation, average bodyweight of 643 ± 85 kg, 158 ± 32 days in lactation, 40.0 ± 2.1 kg milk production and locomotion score ≤ 2) were housed in the other pen. Locomotion scoring was performed prior to treatment allocation according to the system developed by Sprecher et al., (1997), which consists of classifying animals on a scale of one to five, one representing normal locomotion and five severe lameness [23].
The animals were milked individually three times a day in a 48-herring bone milking parlour between the hours of: (1) 0400 and 0430; (2) 1200 and 1230; (3) 2000 and 2030. Individual milk production was electronically recorded. Animals were group-fed twice a day (at 7:00 and then at 17:00) with a total mixed ration (TMR) prepared using a mixer wagon (Siloking, Tittmoning/Germany). The composition of the TMR (Table 1) remained the same from at least two weeks prior to the start until the end of the experiment. Access to water was ad libitum.
The experiment consisted of a three-day adaptation phase followed by a three-day sample collection stage Since in our experiment, cows had the same unchanged ration prior to the adaptation period, we considered that a shorter period is sufficient, given that, for the digestive studies, a longer adaptation period is recommended [24]. On day two of sample collection, one animal from the EG suffered diarrhea. The animal remained with the group, but all associated data were removed from the statistical calculations.

2.2. Sample Collection and Measurements

Sample collection occurred on all three days of the sample collection period.
  • The amount of TMR offered and refusals were recorded daily. Both fresh TMR and refusals were sampled, vacuum-packed and stored at 4–5 °C prior to analysis for dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), crude fiber, crude fat, crude ash and acid insoluble ash (AIA) [25,26,27].
  • Dry matter intake (DMI) was estimated for each animal using total fecal output (FO) and the organic matter digestibility coefficient (DOMcoeff) obtained from AIA according to the following formulas [28]:
DOMcoeff = 1−(AIAfeed÷AIAfeces)
DMIestimated (kg) = FO (kg DM)÷(1−DOMcoeff)
The individual DMIestimated amounts were expressed as a percentage of total DMI obtained from the sum of the values for each group, daily. Then, to obtain the real DMI, the resulted individual daily percentages obtained were applied to the DMI calculated as the difference between the amount of TMR fed (kg DM) and the amount of refusals (kg DM) recorded daily, for each group.
  • Milk production was individually recorded by electronic software in the milking parlour (Afimilk, Israel). Milk samples were collected at each milking (3 samples daily per animal) in 100 mL plastic sampling pots that contained a Broad Spectrum Microtabs II pill and stored at a temperature of 4–5 °C and were analysed for fat, protein and milk urea nitrogen (MUN) by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) with a CombiFoss FT + device (Foss, Hillerød/Denmark) [29].
  • Energy-corrected milk (ECM) was calculated using the formula [30]:
ECM (kg) = 0.327 × milk yield (kg) + 12.95 × fat (kg) + 7.65 × protein (kg)
  • Milk N was calculated using the formula [31]:
N milk (g/day) = milk protein (g/day) ÷ 6.38
  • Urine samples for urea and creatinine analysis were collected individually at 6 h intervals (4 samples daily per animal) by manually stimulating the vulva and collecting midstream into a 1 L volume plastic measuring jug and then transferring to 60 mL plastic urine sampling pots. Lee et al., (2019) showed that, when there are no dietary changes, 4 daily samples are sufficient to determine average urinary creatinine concentration (CU) required for urine volume (UV) estimation [32]. After collection, the urine samples were immediately acidified with 3 mL of 6N hydrochloric acid for 60 mL of urine, transferred to 11 mL plastic conical tubes and stored at 4–5 °C until analysis. Urine samples were processed and analyzed for urea and creatinine by spectrophotometric methods using commercial kits specific to the Cobas Integra 400 plus analyser (Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland) [33,34]. Daily urine volume was calculated using the formula:
UV (kg/day) = 29 × Body weight (kg) ÷ (CU (mg/dL) × 10),
where 29 represents the average creatinine coefficient per body weight expressed in mg/kg [32,35].
  • Urinary N excretion (UN) was determined by the regression equation described by Spek (2013) [36]:
UN (g/day) = 72.3 ± 22.49 + 0.866 ± 0.1147 × Urine urea N (g/day)
  • Total collection of feces was performed on an individual basis for each animal. The fecal samples were collected immediately in 60 L containers, directly from the floor avoiding bedding (straw) contamination and stored at 4–5 °C until analysis. The total amount of feces was weighed and recorded daily for each animal. The fecal samples contaminated with urine were weighed and noted but not stored into containers to avoid urine N contamination of fecal samples. Two types of fecal samples were taken: a daily sample representing 24 h collection of feces necessary for N analysis and a pooled sample, consisting of two samples taken over a 24 h period (at intervals of 12 h) for determination of AIA. The collection of pooled samples was performed very carefully to avoid contamination with soil or sand. According to the literature, daily variation in AIA is negligible, meaning that the use of two samples in a 24 h period is sufficient [37]. Samples were stored in zip-lock plastic bags at 4–5 °C prior to being analysed. N analysis was carried out on oven-dried feces using the Kjeldahl method [25]. Acid Insoluble Ash was determined by ashing the sample and treating the crude ash with 2% hydrochloric acid followed by drying and weighing the insoluble residue [25,27].
  • Data were statistically analyzed by Analysis of Variance and the Student T-test with IBM SPPS 22 software (IBM, New York, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Dry Matter Intake, FO and DOMcoeff

Dry matter intake, FO and DOMcoeff data are listed in Table 2. In our study, there were no significant differences in DMI, FO or DOMcoeff between treatment groups.

3.2. Milk Yield and Constituents

Milk production data are given in Table 3. The mean milk yield of the EG cows was significantly higher (+3.86 kg; p = 0.010) compared with the CG animals. Also, the EG had significantly higher ECM (+5.08 kg; p = 0.003) than the CG. No significant difference was found for milk fat or protein %, but fat and protein yield were higher in the EG compared to the CG. A near significant difference was found in the MUN where EG cows had a 15% lower MUN than CG animals (p ≤ 0.05) (Table 3).

3.3. Urinary Volume and Constituents

Urinary volume and constituents as well body weight data are listed in Table 4. There were no differences in body weight or urinary urea (UU) concentration between the treatment groups. Urine volume in EG animals was 5.28 kg lower than that in the CG (p < 0.008). Urinary creatinine (CU) concentration in the EG (74.03 mg/dL) was significantly (p < 0.028) higher compared with that for the CG cows (64.87 mg/dL). Consequently, the creatinine/urea ratio was significantly (p < 0.001) higher in the EG vs. the CG (0.0720 vs. 0.0545, respectively).

3.4. Nitrogen Balance

Nitrogen balance data are shown in Table 5. There was no difference in total N intake, retained N or NUE. A trend was observed (p = 0.070) for fecal N excretion. Nitrogen excretion in milk was higher (p = 0.008) and N in urine was lower (p < 0.001) in EG vs. CG cows.
Expressed as a percentage of N intake, there was a significant difference (p = 0.0001) between treatment groups for N in urine (35.96 vs. 28.97 for CG and EG, respectively). There was no difference for either N in feces or milk as a percentage of N intake.

4. Discussion

In this study, we have identified that there was no difference in the DMI of the experimental group compared with the control group. There are several factors that may affect DMI, including milk yield, lactation stage, body weight, ration composition and physical structure, management practices, housing facilities and health status [38,39]. An explanation for our results could be a change in feed consumption behavior that lame cows adopted to compensate for the lower time and frequency of ingestion identified in other studies [40]. In our study, lame animals had significantly higher average milk production (+3.86 kg) compared with control animals. These results are in contrast to many of the studies on lameness where a lower milk yield has been seen for lame cows compared with non-lame cows [41,42,43,44,45]. Most of these studies were carried out on cows that were not housed in experimental pens as in our experiment. The results obtained in the experiment could be attributed to the improvement in housing conditions with regards to comfort, which would likely have had a greater impact on lame animals than the control group [46]. The results of this study serve to highlight the unrealized production potential of lame animals.
Much of the previous research carried out on lame animals has focused on milk production with little attention paid to milk constituents. Zhang et al. [47] recorded significantly lower levels of fat in milk from lame compared with sound animals. Previously, Juarez [48] found no significant differences in milk fat and milk protein in cows with different locomotion scores. A recent study showed that, out of a total of 168 milk metabolites analyzed, including various fatty acids and amino acids, 35 were present at lower levels and two present at higher levels in lame compared with sound cows [49]. In our research, there was no difference in either milk fat or protein percentage between the two groups.
Milk urea nitrogen has been extensively studied for its potential to evaluate protein metabolism and the efficiency of N use in dairy cows, as well as for the prediction of N urine emissions [50]. There are few studies showing data on MUN levels in lame animals. In these studies, no difference in MUN from lame vs. sound cows has been reported [47,49]. This contrasts with our research that demonstrated a lower MUN level for EG compared with CG cows.
Creatinine is a product of the breakdown of creatine phosphate in muscle and is usually produced at a constant rate by the body. Muscle creatinine is the main source of plasma and urinary creatinine and any change in skeletal muscle mass in healthy, hydrated animals with normal renal function results in a change in plasma and, subsequently, urinary creatinine concentration. Creatinine is eliminated from the body by glomerular and tubular filtration at the renal level, it is not reabsorbed or reused by the body [51,52,53]. In human literature, intrinsic factors, such as muscle mass, age, sex and health status, and extrinsic factors, such as meat consumption, urine volume, physical exercise and incomplete voiding, have been found to influence urinary creatinine (CU) concentration [53]. In ruminants, higher CU concentration levels have been seen in young animals (1st lactation vs. multiparous) but there appears no difference between cows after their 2nd lactation [54]. A recent study showed that cows with high milk urea had lower renal creatinine clearance rates, thus lower CU concentration levels [55]. According to previous research, high levels of creatinine in the blood due to muscle tissue mobilization were recorded in animals affected by metabolic stress as a result of heat stress. Heat stress leads to an acceleration of protein catabolism, which would explain an increase in plasma and urinary creatinine [56]. This is not the case with the research of Joo et al. [57], where the animals subjected to heat stress did not show differences in the concentration of creatinine in the blood. The CU values recorded in our experiment revealed that the EG had significantly higher urine creatinine values compared with the CG cows. The result is surprising, because most of the potentially influencing factors did not differ between the experimental groups, with the exception of locomotion score. It is well known that lame cows often have elevated blood cortisol levels due to chronic pain-induced stress [58]. The effect of cortisol on metabolism consists of stimulating hepatic gluconeogenesis while reducing glycogen synthesis. At the muscle level, cortisol reduces the use of glucose by the muscles, as well as increases the metabolism of muscle proteins for the supply of glucogenic amino acids [59,60,61]. This explains the results obtained by Cozzi et al., as well as those in our experiment regarding increasing serum creatinine concentration and, subsequently, CU concentration. Usually, high blood cortisol increases water intake and UV due to a direct effect on blood flow at the kidney level, as well as due to the indirect effect of inhibiting the release of ADH [60]. In ruminants, however, previous research found different results of cortisol action. In their study, Parker et al. [62] infused exogenous cortisol into sheep and observed a significant, positive effect on UV, but water intake was not affected. Guerrini et al. [63] found that sheep with high plasma cortisol had lower water intakes and subsequently lower UV. A lower UV leads to a higher CU concentration that confirms the results of our study. Even though CU concentration could be affected by different factors (mentioned above), the results of this study show that further research on CU concentration may have the potential to develop a tool for lameness detection. In our study, the animals were chronically lame, so further research could be done to confirm whether CU concentration is altered in the early stages of lameness development.
In cattle, UU concentration varies between 210 and 1920 mg/dl and is influenced by numerous nutritional and management factors, as well as animal-related and genetic factors [6,7,64]. A recent study showed that lame animals had a significantly lower UU concentration compared with their sound counterparts, even before the animals were diagnosed as lame. The UU concentration levels remained low for the first few days after diagnosis. The authors hypothesized a reduction in hepatic synthesis of urea in order to maintain a correct acid-based balance as a compensatory response of animals prior to and at the beginning of the evolution of the lameness [65]. In a previous study, the same author showed that lame animals had significantly higher levels of serum lactate compared with sound animals, indicating a state of metabolic acidosis [47]. Two bicarbonate molecules are required for urea synthesis in the liver. Therefore, lame animals, being in a state of metabolic acidosis, save bicarbonate to buffer acidity, affecting the production of urea in the liver and thus its excretion in the urine. However, the same low levels of UU concentration between lame and non-lame animals were not recorded in the following weeks after diagnosis, confirming the results of a previous study [65]. In our research, there was no difference in UU concentration between the two experimental groups. An explanation could be that our results were obtained from animals at least a week after the diagnosis of lameness, confirming Zhang’s results. Another explanation could be that the number of urine samples collected was different between the two studies (4 in our research versus 1 per day in Zhang), which could influence values obtained as UU can vary significantly during the day [66].
The CU/UU ratio in urine is a useful indicator that can be used to detect muscle catabolism. Animals experiencing muscle catabolism have significantly higher CU/UU ratios that indicate a mobilization of body proteins [67]. There are several factors that influence the CU/UU ratio that are similar to those described for CU and UU. In our research, the CU/UU ratio was higher in LE animals compared to those in the CG, indicating a pronounced protein catabolism, possibly attributable to an increased level of cortisol. Even though the CU/UU ratio could be influenced by different factors, the results of the experiment show that, with further research, the CU/UU ratio may have the potential to be used as a tool to detect lame animals. Similar to CU, further research could be done to confirm that the CU/UU ratio is altered in the early stage of lameness development.
Urination is a physiological process controlled by the pituitary gland via antidiuretic hormone (ADH), also called vasopressin. The release of ADH into the blood is mainly influenced by the osmotic concentration of plasma but can also be stimulated by other factors, such as pain, exercise or psychological stress. [68]. The main factors responsible for the change in plasma osmotic concentration are water deprivation, ambient temperature and the intake of N or minerals, such as sodium and potassium [6,64,68]. In the present study, the urine volume for cows in the EG was 5.28 kg lower than those in the CG (p < 0.008). This was unexpected given that both groups had unrestricted access to water; the ambient temperature and TMR were similar and unchanged. Creatinine production can lead to overestimation of urine volume, especially in animals with an increased body condition [32,69]. However, in our research, there were no significant differences on body weight between the experimental groups (Table 4). An explanation for the low UV could be a stimulatory effect of pain on ADH synthesis [68]. Another hypothesis may be that of a high cortisol level, which has the effect of both reducing water intake and reducing UV, as Guerrini et al., (1982) saw in their experiment [63]. This hypothesis is in agreement with the recent results obtained by Antanaitis et al. [70], which, using daily activity monitoring devices, observed that the time spent for water consumption in lame cows is 0.42 min/hour less than healthy animals.
There are no previous studies on N balance in lame compared with sound animals. According to our research, there was no significant difference on total N intake between lame and sound cows. The N excretion in milk for lame cows was +22.5 g higher than their sound counterparts. Although the results obtained for UU concentration were similar between the two groups, the total N excreted in urine was significantly lower for the EG compared to the CG. An explanation may be related to the reduced urinary volume recorded in lame animals compared to their sound counterparts, potentially attributed to a lower water intake or an effect of the prediction equation used to estimate urine volume. The latter is one used for assumed non-lame cows and may not be suitable for animals in an increased state of muscle catabolism, potentially the case with lame cows. At the same time, our results could confirm Zhang’s hypothesis of a reduction in hepatic urea synthesis to maintain an acid-based balance as a compensatory response in lame animals [65]. The difference between trials is that we obtained a lower total UU (g/day) excretion, while Zhang found lower UU concentration (mg/dL) for lame compared with not-lame cows.

5. Conclusions

Urinary N emissions in lame animals were significantly lower compared with healthy animals. Under the conditions of ensuring adequate comfort, mainly by reducing the distances cows had to travel from the resting space to food, water, and the milking parlour, lame animals can express their productive potential much better, which has a positive impact on milk production, as well as on efficiency of nitrogen use. The urinary creatinine concentration and the urinary creatinine/urea ratio may have the potential to be used as a tool for lameness detection.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.-C.N. and L.S.; methodology, D.-C.N.; software, E.S.; validation, L.S.; investigation, D.-C.N.; resources, H.E.W. and J.T.-P.; data curation, D.-C.N.; writing—original draft preparation, D.-C.N. and L.S.; writing—review and editing, D.-C.N., L.S., H.E.W., J.T.-P. and E.S.; supervision, L.S.; funding acquisition, D.-C.N. and J.T.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the ALLTECH BIOSCIENCE CENTRE, DUNBOYNE, IRELAND.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because there was no invasive procedure on animals.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Uwizeye, A.; de Boer, I.J.M.; Opio, C.I.; Schulte, R.P.O.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G.; Teillard, F.; Casu, F.; Rulli, M.; Galloway, J.N.; et al. Nitrogen emissions along global livestock supply chains. Nat. Food 2020, 1, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Powell, J.M.; Jackson-Smith, D.B.; McCrory, D.F.; Saam, H.; Mariola, M. Validation of Feed and Manure Data Collected on Wisconsin Dairy Farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 2268–2278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Gourley, C.J.P.; Aarons, S.R.; Powell, J.M. Nitrogen use efficiency and manure management practices in contrasting dairy production systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 147, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Erisman, J.W.; Galloway, J.N.; Seitzinger, S.; Bleeker, A.; Dise, N.B.; Petrescu, A.M.R.; Leach, A.M.; de Vries, W. Consequences of human modification of the global nitrogen cycle. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2013, 368, 20130116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Galloway, J.N.; Townsend, A.R.; Erisman, J.W.; Bekunda, M.; Cai, Z.; Freney, J.R.; Martinelli, L.A.; Seitzinger, S.P.; Sutton, M.A. Transformation of the Nitrogen Cycle: Recent Trends, Questions, and Potential Solutions. Science 2008, 320, 889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Spek, J.W.; Dijkstra, J.; Van Duinkerken, G.; Bannink, A. A review of factors influencing milk urea concentration and its relationship with urinary urea excretion in lactating dairy cattle. J. Agric. Sci. 2013, 151, 407–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Necula, D.C.; Balta, I.; Corcionivoschi, N.; Stef, L. Nutritional and genetical factors influencing Nitrogen metabolism and excretion in dairy cows: A review. Sci. Pap. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2021, 54, 31–38. [Google Scholar]
  8. Fraser, D. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Vet. Scand. 2008, 50, S1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Sadiq, M.B.; Ramanoon, S.Z.; Shaik Mossadeq, W.M.; Mansor, R.; Syed-Hussain, S.S. Association between Lameness and Indicators of Dairy Cow Welfare Based on Locomotion Scoring, Body and Hock Condition, Leg Hygiene and Lying Behavior. Animals 2017, 7, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Sanders, A.H.; Shearer, J.K.; De Vries, A. Seasonal incidence of lameness and risk factors associated with thin soles, white line disease, ulcers, and sole punctures in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 3165–3174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. National Animal Health Monitoring System. Dairy 2007: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the United States, 2007; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, National Animal Health Monitoring System: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2009.
  12. Winckler, C. On-farm animal welfare assessment and welfare improvement in dairy cattle. AgroLife Sci. J. 2014, 3, 163–168. [Google Scholar]
  13. Huxley, J.N. Impact of lameness and claw lesions in cows on health and production. Livest. Sci. 2013, 156, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Solano, L.; Barkema, H.W.; Pajor, E.A.; Mason, S.; LeBlanc, S.J.; Zaffino Heyerhoff, J.C.; Nash, C.G.R.; Haley, D.B.; Vasseur, E.; Pellerin, D.; et al. Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in freestall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 6978–6991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Sjöström, K.; Fall, N.; Blanco-Penedo, I.; Duval, J.E.; Krieger, M.; Emanuelson, U. Lameness prevalence and risk factors in organic dairy herds in four European countries. Livest. Sci. 2018, 208, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gomez, A.; Cook, N.B. Time budgets of lactating dairy cattle in commercial freestall herds. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 5772–5781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Norring, M.; Häggman, J.; Simojoki, H.; Tamminen, P.; Winckler, C.; Pastell, M. Short communication: Lameness impairs feeding behavior of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 4317–4321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Miguel-Pacheco, G.G.; Kaler, J.; Remnant, J.; Cheyne, L.; Abbott, C.; French, A.P.; Pridmore, T.P.; Huxley, J.N. Behavioural changes in dairy cows with lameness in an automatic milking system. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 150, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Weigele, H.C.; Gygax, L.; Steiner, A.; Wechsler, B.; Burla, J.B. Moderate lameness leads to marked behavioral changes in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 2370–2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Krause, K.M.; Oetzel, G.R. Understanding and preventing subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy herds: A review. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2006, 126, 215–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bristow, D.J.; Holmes, D.S. Cortisol levels and anxiety-related behaviors in cattle. Physiol. Behav. 2007, 90, 626–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Almeida, P.E.; Weber, P.S.D.; Burton, J.L.; Zanella, A.J. Depressed DHEA and increased sickness response behaviors in lame dairy cows with inflammatory foot lesions. Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 2008, 34, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Sprecher, D.J.; Hostetler, D.E.; Kaneene, J.B. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 1997, 47, 1179–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Machado, M.G.; Detmann, E.; Mantovani, H.C.; Valadares Filho, S.C.; Bento, C.B.P.; Marcondes, M.I.; Assunção, A.S. Evaluation of the length of adaptation period for changeover and crossover nutritional experiments with cattle fed tropical forage-based diets. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2016, 222, 132–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rodica Diana Criste, V.H.; Grossu, D.V.; Olteanu, M.; Dragomir, C.; Bercaru, A. Metode Analitice Specifice Studiului Nutreturilor Vol. I; Colectia—Cartile Centrului de excelenta „Nutritia si alimentatia animalelor”; Institutul de Biologie si Nutritie Animala IBNA: Balotești, Romania, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  26. Şara, A.; Odagiu, A. Controlul Calităţii Nutreţurilor; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; Editura AcademicPress: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  27. Van Keulen, J.; Young, B.A. Evaluation of Acid-Insoluble Ash as a Natural Marker in Ruminant Digestibility Studies. J. Anim. Sci. 1977, 44, 282–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pepeta, B.N.; Moyo, M.; Hassen, A.; Nsahlai, I.V. Stocking Rate Has No Confounding Effect on the Use of Internal and Inert Markers to Predict Botanical Composition, Diet Quality, Degradability and Passage Rate Kinetics in Sheep. Animals 2020, 10, 2232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Van De Voort, F.R.; Sedman, J.; Emo, G.; Ismail, A.A. Assessment of Fourier transform infrared analysis of milk. J. AOAC Int. 1992, 75, 780–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tyrrell, H.F.; Reid, J.T. Prediction of the energy value of cow’s milk. J. Dairy Sci. 1965, 48, 1215–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dupont, D.; Croguennec, T.; Brodkorb, A.; Kouaouci, R. Quantitation of Proteins in Milk and Milk Products. In Advanced Dairy Chemistry: Volume 1A: Proteins: Basic Aspects, 4th ed.; McSweeney, P.L.H., Fox, P.F., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2013; pp. 87–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lee, C.; Morris, D.L.; Dieter, P.A. Validating and optimizing spot sampling of urine to estimate urine output with creatinine as a marker in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 236–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Tiffany, T.O.; Jansen, J.M.; Burtis, C.A.; Overton, J.B.; Scott, C.D. Enzymatic kinetic rate and end-point analyses of substrate, by use of a GeMSAEC fast analyzer. Clin. Chem. 1972, 18, 829–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Talke, H.; Schubert, G.E. Enzymatische Harnstoffbestimmung in Blut und Serum im optischen Test nachWarburg. Klin. Wochenschr. 1965, 43, 174–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Broderick, G.A.; Faciola, A.P.; Armentano, L.E. Replacing dietary soybean meal with canola meal improves production and efficiency of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 5672–5687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Spek, J.W. Variation of Milk Urea in Dairy Cattle: A Study on Factors That Affect the Relationship between Urea Concentration in Milk and Urea Excretion in Urine. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  37. Sales, J.; Janssens, G.P.J. Acid-insoluble ash as a marker in digestibility studies: A review. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2003, 12, 383–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Weiss, B. Optimizing and Evaluating Dry Matter Intake of Dairy Cows. WCDS Adv. Dairy Technol. 2015, 27, 189–200. [Google Scholar]
  39. Bareille, N.; Beaudeau, F.; Billon, S.; Robert, A.; Faverdin, P. Effects of health disorders on feed intake and milk production in dairy cows. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2003, 83, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Thorup, V.M.; Nielsen, B.L.; Robert, P.-E.; Giger-Reverdin, S.; Konka, J.; Michie, C.; Friggens, N.C. Lameness Affects Cow Feeding But Not Rumination Behavior as Characterized from Sensor Data. Front. Vet. Sci. 2016, 3, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Coulon, J.B.; Lescourret, F.; Fonty, A. Effect of Foot Lesions on Milk Production by Dairy Cows1. J. Dairy Sci. 1996, 79, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Bicalho, R.C.; Warnick, L.D.; Guard, C.L. Strategies to Analyze Milk Losses Caused by Diseases with Potential Incidence Throughout the Lactation: A Lameness Example. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 2653–2661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Archer, S.C.; Green, M.J.; Huxley, J.N. Association between milk yield and serial locomotion score assessments in UK dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 4045–4053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Amory, J.R.; Barker, Z.E.; Wright, J.L.; Mason, S.A.; Blowey, R.W.; Green, L.E. Associations between sole ulcer, white line disease and digital dermatitis and the milk yield of 1824 dairy cows on 30 dairy cow farms in England and Wales from February 2003–November 2004. Prev. Vet. Med. 2008, 83, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Reader, J.D.; Green, M.J.; Kaler, J.; Mason, S.A.; Green, L.E. Effect of mobility score on milk yield and activity in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 5045–5052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Thomsen, P.T.; Fogsgaard, K.K.; Jensen, M.B.; Raundal, P.; Herskin, M.S. Better recovery from lameness among dairy cows housed in hospital pens. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 11291–11297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Zhang, G.; Hailemariam, D.; Dervishi, E.; Deng, Q.; Goldansaz, S.A.; Dunn, S.M.; Ametaj, B.N. Alterations of Innate Immunity Reactants in Transition Dairy Cows before Clinical Signs of Lameness. Animals 2015, 5, 717–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Juarez, S.T.; Robinson, P.H.; DePeters, E.J.; Price, E.O. Impact of lameness on behavior and productivity of lactating Holstein cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 83, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zwierzchowski, G.; Zhang, G.; Mandal, R.; Wishart, D.S.; Ametaj, B.N. Milk Metabotyping Identifies Metabolite Alterations in the Whole Raw Milk of Dairy Cows with Lameness. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 4507–4514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nousiainen, J.; Shingfield, K.J.; Huhtanen, P. Evaluation of Milk Urea Nitrogen as a Diagnostic of Protein Feeding. J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87, 386–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Wyss, M.; Kaddurah-Daouk, R. Creatine and creatinine metabolism. Physiol. Rev. 2000, 80, 1107–1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Aafjes, J.H.; de Groot, T. Creatine in the Urine of the Dairy Cow. Br. Vet. J. 1961, 117, 201–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Boeniger, M.F.; Lowry, L.K.; Rosenberg, J. Interpretation of urine results used to assess chemical exposure with emphasis on creatinine adjustments: A review. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1993, 54, 615–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Løvendahl, P.; Sehested, J. Short communication: Individual cow variation in urinary excretion of phosphorus. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 4580–4585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Müller, C.B.M.; Görs, S.; Derno, M.; Tuchscherer, A.; Wimmers, K.; Zeyner, A.; Kuhla, B. Differences between Holstein dairy cows in renal clearance rate of urea affect milk urea concentration and the relationship between milk urea and urinary nitrogen excretion. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 755, 143198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cozzi, G.; Ravarotto, L.; Gottardo, F.; Stefani, A.L.; Contiero, B.; Moro, L.; Brscic, M.; Dalvit, P. Short communication: Reference values for blood parameters in Holstein dairy cows: Effects of parity, stage of lactation, and season of production. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 3895–3901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Joo, S.S.; Lee, S.J.; Park, D.S.; Kim, D.H.; Gu, B.-H.; Park, Y.J.; Rim, C.Y.; Kim, M.; Kim, E.T. Changes in Blood Metabolites and Immune Cells in Holstein and Jersey Dairy Cows by Heat Stress. Animals 2021, 11, 974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Juozaitienė, V.; Antanaitis, R.; Urbonavičius, G.; Urbutis, M.; Tušas, S.; Baumgartner, W. Can Milk Flow Traits Act as Biomarkers of Lameness in Dairy Cows? Agriculture 2021, 11, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cotrut, M.; Constatin, N.; Şonea, A. Fiziologia Animalelor Domestice; Editura Coral Sanivet: Bucureşti, Romania, 1998; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  60. Pineda, M.H.; Dooley, M.P. McDonald’s Veterinary Endocrinology and Reproduction; Iowa State Press: Ames, IA, USA; Wiley-Blackwell: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  61. Exton, J.H. Regulation of gluconeogenesis by glucocorticoids. Monogr. Endocrinol. 1979, 12, 535–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Parker, A.J.; Hamlin, G.P.; Coleman, C.J.; Fitzpatrick, L.A. Dehydration in stressed ruminants may be the result of acortisol-induced diuresis1. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 81, 512–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Guerrini, V.H.; Bertchinger, H. Effect of Ambient Temperature and Humidity on Plasma Cortisol in Sheep. Br. Vet. J. 1982, 138, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Dijkstra, J.; Oenema, O.; van Groenigen, J.W.; Spek, J.W.; van Vuuren, A.M.; Bannink, A. Diet effects on urine composition of cattle and N2O emissions. Animal 2013, 7 (Suppl. 2), 292–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Zhang, G.; Dervishi, E.; Zwierzchowski, G.; Mandal, R.; Wishart, D.S.; Ametaj, B.N. Urinary Metabolomics around Parturition Identifies Metabolite Alterations in Dairy Cows Affected Postpartum by Lameness: Preliminary Study. Dairy 2020, 1, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Cosgrove, G.P.; Jonker, A.; Lowe, K.A.; Taylor, P.S.; Pacheco, D. Diurnal variation in urine nitrogen and creatinine concentrations from lactating cows grazing ryegrass-dominant pasture in autumn and late spring–summer. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2017, 57, 1297–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Yamamoto, S.; Ohta, Y.; Hasegawa, E.; Hashida, S.; Kaneko, Y.; Mizutani, S.; Ong, B.H.E.; Naganobu, K.; Torisu, S. Usefulness of Urinary Creatinine/Urea Nitrogen Ratio as Indicator of Body Protein Catabolism in Dogs Fed Low Protein Diets. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019, 6, 449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 8th ed.; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2021; p. 502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chizzotti, M.L.; Valadares Filho, S.D.C.; Valadares, R.F.D.; Chizzotti, F.H.M.; Tedeschi, L.O. Determination of creatinine excretion and evaluation of spot urine sampling in Holstein cattle. Livest. Sci. 2008, 113, 218–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Antanaitis, R.; Juozaitienė, V.; Urbonavičius, G.; Malašauskienė, D.; Televičius, M.; Urbutis, M.; Baumgartner, W. Impact of Lameness on Attributes of Feeding Registered with Noseband Sensor in Fresh Dairy Cows. Agriculture 2021, 11, 851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Composition and chemical analysis of TMR.
Table 1. Composition and chemical analysis of TMR.
CompositionDry Matter (DM) (Kg/Head/Day)
Corn silage9.30
Alfalfa hay1.06
Brewer’s grain1.32
Corn4.94
Barley3.72
Soybean meal bypass0.99
Soybean meal0.97
Rapeseed meal0.90
Molasses0.68
Full-fat soy bypass0.71
Calcium salts fat0.23
Hydrogenated fat 99%0.13
Calcium carbonate0.10
Salt0.08
Premix 10.05
Zeolite0.05
Crude protein (g/kg DM)154 ± 2.3
Crude fibre (g/kg DM)167 ± 2.5
Crude fat (g/kg DM)41 ± 1.7
Crude ash (g/kg DM)58 ± 7.4
Acid insoluble ash (AIA) (g/kg DM)9 ± 0.7
1 vitamins AD3E, biotin and trace minerals: Cu, Mn, Zn, I, Co.
Table
Table 2. Mean values ± SEM for dry matter intake, fecal output and diet digestibility of dairy cows grouped by low (CG) or high (EG) locomotion score.
Table 2. Mean values ± SEM for dry matter intake, fecal output and diet digestibility of dairy cows grouped by low (CG) or high (EG) locomotion score.
Variable or ItemCGEGp Value
MeanSEMMeanSEM
DMI (kg/day)24.090.7325.170.580.25
FO (kg DM/day)7.520.167.860.130.12
DOMcoeff0.650.010.660.010.49
SEM = Standard Error of Mean.
Table
Table 3. Mean values ± SEM for milk yield and milk constituents of dairy cows grouped by low (CG) or high (EG) locomotion score.
Table 3. Mean values ± SEM for milk yield and milk constituents of dairy cows grouped by low (CG) or high (EG) locomotion score.
Variable or ItemCGEGp Value
MeanSEMMeanSEM
Milk Yield (kg/day)39.720.8543.581.190.01
ECM 1 (kg/day)43.191.2548.271.020.003
Fat (%)3.900.154.080.090.32
Protein (%)3.340.043.380.040.45
Fat (kg/day)1.550.071.760.030.009
Protein (kg/day)1.330.191.470.200.008
MUN (mg/dL)17.701.1315.020.740.05
SEM = Standard Error of Mean 1 Energy-corrected milk (ECM) = 0.327 × milk yield (kg) + 12.95 × fat (kg) + 7.65 × protein (kg) [30].
Table
Table 4. Body weight, urinary volume and constituents of dairy cows grouped by low (CG) or high (EG) locomotion score.
Table 4. Body weight, urinary volume and constituents of dairy cows grouped by low (CG) or high (EG) locomotion score.
Variable or ItemCGEGp Value
MeanSEMMeanSEM
Body weight (kg)643.0027.06609.7818.580.336
Urine volume (kg)30.241.3524.961.330.008
Urine creatinine (mg/dL)64.873.0174.032.660.028
Urine urea (mg/dL)1187.0546.311105.6636.920.181
Creatinine/Urea ratio0.050.0010.070.001<0.001
SEM = Standard Error of Mean.
Table
Table 5. Mean values ±SEM of Nitrogen Balance of dairy cows grouped by low (CG) or high (EG) locomotion score.
Table 5. Mean values ±SEM of Nitrogen Balance of dairy cows grouped by low (CG) or high (EG) locomotion score.
ItemCGEGp Value
MeanSEMMeanSEM
N intake (g/day)594.3317.72620.9614.160.252
N milk (g/day)208.175.39230.676.140.008
N urine (g/day)209.773.85178.072.61<0.001
N feces (g/day)189.504.36200.894.330.070
N retention (g/day)−13.131.5911.411.350.229
NUE 10.3560.0110.3730.0190.267
N partitioning
N urine (%N intake)35.960.5828.970.40<0.001
N feces (%N intake)32.280.4632.670.540.743
N milk (%N intake)35.600.6837.300.590.254
SEM = Standard Error of Mean 1 Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) = N milk (g/day)/N intake (g/day).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Necula, D.-C.; Warren, H.E.; Taylor-Pickard, J.; Simiz, E.; Stef, L. Associations of Lameness with Indicators of Nitrogen Metabolism and Excretion in Dairy Cows. Agriculture 2022, 12, 2109. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12122109

AMA Style

Necula D-C, Warren HE, Taylor-Pickard J, Simiz E, Stef L. Associations of Lameness with Indicators of Nitrogen Metabolism and Excretion in Dairy Cows. Agriculture. 2022; 12(12):2109. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12122109

Chicago/Turabian Style

Necula, Daniel-Catalin, Helen Elizabeth Warren, Jules Taylor-Pickard, Eliza Simiz, and Lavinia Stef. 2022. "Associations of Lameness with Indicators of Nitrogen Metabolism and Excretion in Dairy Cows" Agriculture 12, no. 12: 2109. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12122109

APA Style

Necula, D.-C., Warren, H. E., Taylor-Pickard, J., Simiz, E., & Stef, L. (2022). Associations of Lameness with Indicators of Nitrogen Metabolism and Excretion in Dairy Cows. Agriculture, 12(12), 2109. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12122109

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop