Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Biochemical Parameters in Caretta caretta Sea Turtles
Previous Article in Journal
RNA-Seq Profiling in Chicken Spleen and Thymus Infected with Newcastle Disease Virus of Varying Virulence
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Veterinary Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 11
10.3390/vetsci11110570
vetsci-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:
Case Report

Chiropractic Treatment of Dairy Cows

by
Franziska C. Wagner
*,
Felicitas Hesse
,
Johanna Wehrle
and
Christoph K. W. Mülling
Institute of Veterinary Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Leipzig University, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Vet. Sci. 2024, 11(11), 570; https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci11110570
Submission received: 14 October 2024 / Revised: 8 November 2024 / Accepted: 12 November 2024 / Published: 15 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Topic Animal Diseases in Agricultural Production Systems: Their Veterinary, Zoonotic, and One Health Importance, 2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

Lameness, which can also result from back problems, is a major issue in dairy cows. It affects both the well-being of the cows and the farm’s economy. Chiropractic techniques, as forms of manual therapy, are well known for treating back problems in humans and horses. The cow’s spine is quite different from that of the horse, but understanding cow anatomy is crucial for effective chiropractic treatment. This report examines how chiropractic methods can be adapted to help cows based on their unique anatomy. It also presents five cases and gives an example of measuring the angulation of spinal joints. Chiropractic treatments helped reduce lameness and back problems in dairy cows, especially when used in conjunction with other treatments. However, more research is needed to fully understand the role of chiropractic care in cows.

Abstract

Lameness, also attributed to musculoskeletal disorders of the back, is a major issue in dairy cow farming, affecting both animal welfare and economics. Chiropractic techniques are well studied in humans and horses for the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. The anatomy of the bovine spine differs significantly from that of horses, but the knowledge of the animal’s specific anatomy is crucial for chiropractic treatment. This report explores how chiropractic methods could be adapted to cattle, considering their unique anatomy, and potentially integrated into standard veterinary care. Five case reports and an example of measuring the alignment of the facet joints in the spine are presented and discussed. Chiropractic treatments showed success in alleviating lameness and spinal issues in dairy cows, particularly when combined with other interventions. However, the role of chiropractic treatment in cattle as a complementary therapy needs further research.

1. Introduction

Lameness is one of the most important problems in dairy cow farming [1]. The resulting animal welfare and economic issues are well documented [2], but herd prevalence remains high [3]. Musculoskeletal injuries, including disorders of the leg, hip, and back, were categorised as belonging to class III of IV in terms of disability weight in a study by McConnel et al. [4].
Chiropractic treatment aims to improve the function of the musculoskeletal and nervous systems and their effect on general health [5,6]. The effectiveness of chiropractic manipulation is well studied in the treatment of human [7,8,9,10,11] and equine [12,13,14,15] back pain. Despite its potential benefits, there is limited scientific evidence supporting its efficacy in veterinary medicine, and there are almost no data for cattle [16]. To the authors’ knowledge, only one case report of chiropractic practices in cattle has been published [17].
Chiropractic practice involves spinal manipulative therapy, which requires a thorough understanding of spinal anatomy, biomechanics, and pathology [18]. Chiropractic mobilisation and manipulation are manual therapy techniques used to treat musculoskeletal disorders [19]. Mobilisation techniques involve the application of low-velocity, controlled movements to joints and surrounding tissues to improve mobility and reduce pain [20]. Chiropractic manipulation, also known as spinal manipulation or chiropractic adjustment, means the application of a high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust to a specific joint, typically the spinal vertebrae, to restore its normal function and alleviate pain [21]. The technique is based on the principle that misalignments or dysfunctions in the spine can affect the nervous system and general health. By correcting these misalignments, chiropractic manipulation aims to improve joint mobility, reduce pain, and enhance the body’s natural healing processes [22]. For any chiropractic manipulation, the line of correction is crucial: it ensures that the force applied during the adjustment is precisely directed to achieve the desired therapeutic outcome and restore joint function [21]. The line of correction, which refers to the angle of the force applied during a manipulation, is determined based on the joint’s anatomy and biomechanics. Accurate application reduces the risk of injury or adverse effects by preventing surrounding tissues and structures from experiencing undue stress [23].
One of the questions underlying this case report was the extent to which chiropractic treatment needs to be adapted to the specifics of bovine anatomy. In addition, the procedure for chiropractic treatment in cattle is presented with regard to species-specific handling. Finally, the extent to which chiropractic care can be integrated into the usual medical care of cattle is discussed.

2. Anatomic Characteristics of the Bovine Spine

The following is a discussion of the anatomical peculiarities of cattle compared to horses. The focus here is on structures and characteristics that are important for manipulations of the spine. The description moves from cranial to caudal areas.
The occipital bone of the skull articulates with the atlas, with obliquely positioned occipital condyles [24]. The atlas has shorter and thicker wings, with a flatter fossa atlantis than in the horse [24]. Its dorsal (and ventral) tubercle can be divided into two parts [25]. The axis has a higher, almost straight spinous process which increases in thickness caudally but remains undivided [24]. Unlike in the horse, the caudal articular processes in cattle are clearly separated from the spinous process [24] and are structured as independent articular surfaces [26].
Bovine cervical vertebrae (CV) are shorter than equine ones but have longer spinous processes and more massive transverse processes [24]. The spinous processes increase in length with the CV and are obliquely directed craniodorsally from the 3rd to the 6th CV. It is vertical at the 7th CV and measures at about 14 cm [24], which is about twice as long as that of the 6th CV [27]. At the 3rd and 4th CV, it is notched [25,27]. The transverse processes are split as in horses, but they have shorter dorsoventral tubercles and a thicker and elongated cranioventrally directed tubercles [24,27]. The latter increases in size until the 5th CV, then becomes an extensive, ventrally descending plate on the 6th CV, and is completely absent on the 7th CV [24,25,27]. The cranial and caudal articular processes are small compared to those of the horse [25].
The 13 thoracic vertebrae (TV) are longer than in the horse; the shortest is the 6th or 7th TV [24,27]. The first palpable spinous process is that of the 1st TV, which lies cranial to the scapula [28]. The spinous processes of the TV are broader, and therefore nearer together [24], and they are higher than in the horse. They increase in length up to the 3rd and in width up to the 5th (6th) TV, and then decrease progressively [24,27]. From the 12th (13th) TV onwards, the spinous processes are of the same height [26]. This, and the absence of withers [24], are clearly seen in the very straight topline [28]. The spinous processes of the first 5 TV are steeper in their dorsal half [24], and from the 7th to the 11th TV, they are inclined caudally [25], with the spinous process of the 10th TV being the most oblique [24]. The (12th) 13th TV is the anticlinal vertebra [24]. The cartilage caps of the spinous processes of the 1st to the 5th TV ossify by the age of eight years [25,27]. The joint surfaces of the first 11 TV are tangential, and on the last two they are sagittal [27]. Here, the articular processes increasingly form a cylindrical shape [24]. In the last two TV, the cranial mammillary processes are fused with the cranial articular processes and are always fused in the lumbar vertebrae (LV) [25,27]. The intervertebral foramen of the TV, and often also of the first three LV, is usually divided by a bony bar that encloses the caudal vertebral notch [27].
Also, the bodies of the 6 (occasionally 7 [27]) lumbar vertebrae are longer and have relatively flat vertebral arches compared to those of the horse [24]. The intervertebral foramina are wide, especially in the sacral half [24]. The spinous processes are as high as they are wide and decrease caudally in height [24]. The sharp-edged costal processes increase in length and width until the 4th or 5th LV and then decrease; at the 6th LV, they are sometimes split into two endings [24]. The complete congruence of the cylindrical (caudal) or semi-tubular (cranial) articular processes and narrow joint capsules severely restricts movement [27,28]. In general, the bovine spine is much stiffer, which can also be explained by the shortness of the intervertebral discs, which only make up 10% of the total length of the spine [28]. There are no lumbar or lumbosacral intertransverse joints, which are found in the horse [27].
The 5 sacral vertebrae (SV) are fused in the third or fourth year of life (compared to the fourth or in the fifth year of life in a horse) [27]. The sacrum is more or less dorsally curved [24,27] depending on the breed [25]. Its wings are rectangular [24,27], with caudodorsally faced articular surfaces [25,27]. The sacral spinous processes are less high than in the horse and are fused to the middle sacral crest [24]. This is occasionally interrupted between the 4th and the 5th SV [25].
There are 18 (16) to 20 (21) long and strong coccygeal vertebrae (CCV). Among these, the first 5 show more of the usual characteristics of a vertebra than the horse, e.g., a narrow vertebral arch [24] with a vertebral canal [25]. From the 1st (2nd) to the 13th CCV, two haemal processes are formed at the cranial end. These build up a closed haemal arch from the 2nd (3rd) to the 4th (5th) CCV, and otherwise form a caudally decreasing groove [24,27]. The transverse processes are very wide, short, and rectangular at the 1st CCV and decrease in size at the following CCV until their disappearance at the 9th CCV [24]. The cranial articular processes, which mostly do not exhibit an articular surface, are palpable as small humps until the 8th CCV and as weak bumps until the 13th CCV [24].
The thorax consists of eight sternal and five asternal ribs [24]. In cattle, the caudal articular facet of the head of the ribs does not fuse with that of the tubercle (which is the case for the last three ribs of the horse), resulting in less freedom of movement of the caudal ribs [27]. In horses, the joints between the ribs and their cartilage are generally symphyseal; in cattle, the 2nd to 10th ribs have a tight joint [29], but this can also be a synovial joint [27,29]. The cartilage of the last sternal (8th) rib is sometimes articulated with that of the 7th rib [27].
The sternum is slightly curved upwards dorsally, depending on the breed; there is no sternal crest and the xiphoid is smaller than in the horse [24]. The body of the sternum is plate-shaped, whereas in the horse it is keel-shaped [27]. The outer surface of the sternal vertebrae is connected by a membrane [27].
The manubrium is connected to the body by a synovial joint (in horses, it is connected by subsequent ossifying synchondrosis), which functions as an alternating joint [26,27] and allows slight lateral movements [27]. A ligament passes through this joint, connecting the right and left cartilage of the second ribs [29]. The second pair of ribs shares a joint capsule with the manubriosternal joint [27]. The first pair of ribs articulates with two separate joints, whereas in the horse it articulates with one joint at the manubrium [27].

3. Exemplary Description of the Bovine Facet Joints

To improve our understanding of the inclination of bovine facet joints and thereby enhance our ability to apply the correct line of correction, the vertebral column of an adult cow was obtained from a slaughterhouse. To measure the inclination of the facet joints, the musculature around the spine was removed. The vertebral bodies were sawn through vertically, so that the articular surfaces could be photographed from craniocaudal, laterolateral, and dorsoventral perspectives in a box lined with millimetre paper. The angles on the left side were measured using ImageJ 1.53t (Rasband, W. S., U. S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA) (Figure 1). Angle (A) was taken from a lateral (x-axis) perspective and angle (C) was taken from a dorsal view (z-axis). This refers to the spinal canal. Angle (B) describes the facet joint’s inclination around a vertical axis through the spine (y-axis). The coordinate system is described according to the work of Cotterill et al. [30], but the definition of positive and negative rotation around the axis is defined from a practical point of view of performing chiropractic therapy on bovines.
The presented measurement is merely exemplary and cannot be generalised. It shows that there are different inclinations of the facet joints along the bovine spine. Studies with a larger number of animals and standardised measurement methods are necessary to be able to make reliable statements. In order to describe the tendencies of the inclination, the angles are rounded to the nearest five. According to the measurements presented in Table 1, the average values of angles from C2/C3 to C6/C7 on the x-, y-, and z-axes are 20°, 50°, and 30°, respectively. In the cervicothoracic transition zone, the average values of angles on the x-, y-, and z-axes are 20°, 65°, and 15°, respectively. In the thoracic spine, the average values of angles on the x-, y-, and z-axes are 10°, 50°, and 15°, respectively. In the lumbar spine, the average values of angles on the x-, y-, and z-axes are 20°, 30°, and 25°, respectively.

4. Case Reports

In the following, five cases of dairy cows with musculoskeletal disorders that received chiropractic treatment are described. The locomotion is described with a numerical rating system with 0.5-point increments (locomotion score, LS) according to the work of Flower and Weary [31]. The chiropractic findings are described using the Gonstead Listing System, a method commonly used in veterinary chiropractic to describe restrictions in joint motion (Figure 2). The chiropractic findings were addressed with mobilisation and/or manipulation (adjustment) and via myofascial release techniques. For this purpose, the cows were fastened in the feed fence. To treat the spine along the correct line of correction, a treatment box was used.

4.1. Cases

4.1.1. Case 1

It was a 6-year- and 4-month-old dairy cow in her 5th pregnancy (58th day of gestation). Following the third treatment, single doses of ketoprofen, vitamin B complex, and vitamin D3 were recommended. These was administered by the veterinarian (Table 2).

4.1.2. Case 2

It was a 5-year- and 9-month-old dairy cow in her 5th pregnancy (158th day of gestation) (Table 3).

4.1.3. Case 3

It was a 3-year- and 11-month-old dairy cow in her 3rd pregnancy (102nd day of gestation). Following the second treatment, single doses of ketoprofen, vitamin B complex, and vitamin D3 were recommended. These were administered by the veterinarian. On the fourth and fifth treatment, tense muscles were massaged, and manual lymph drainage was carried out in addition to the traditional chiropractic treatment (Table 4).

4.1.4. Case 4

It was a two-year- and 7-month-old dairy cow in her 3rd pregnancy (pregnancy examination pending) (Table 5).

4.1.5. Case 5

It was an 8-year- and 7-month-old dairy cow (Table 6).

5. Discussion

Veterinary chiropractic care is a growing field, but it still remains under-researched [18,32]. Chiropractic treatments of animals can relieve pain, improve mobility, and promote functional recovery in animals with neuro-musculoskeletal and neurological disorders [18,33]. Their effectiveness is shown in case reports and studies on dogs [34,35] and horses [12,13,14,15], especially for back pain, disc disorders, and neuropathic pain. However, to the authors’ knowledge, there is only one case report on chiropractic treatment in a cow [17]. The limited research on the chiropractic treatment of cattle and other farm animals makes it difficult for veterinarians to recommend or justify chiropractic treatment as a reliable option for farm animals, as there is insufficient evidence of its effectiveness. In livestock, treatments are usually evaluated based on their impact on productivity—such as improvements in milk yield, growth rates, or reproductive success—and their impact on animal welfare. There is a lack of research into whether this form of treatment provides measurable benefits in these key areas. Given the low profit margins in agricultural production, it is unlikely that a treatment will be widely adopted without clear evidence of its efficacy and economic value.
In order to transfer chiropractic techniques to other species, it is important to know their anatomical and biomechanical characteristics. In cattle, the protuberantia intercornualis can be used as a contact zone for the manual treatment of the atlantooccipital joint instead of the flat protuberantia occipitalis. The transverse processes of the lumbar vertebrae, which extend far to the lateral side, can also be used as a contact zone. As the inclination of the facet joints changes along the spine (Table 1, Figure 2), and therefore their biomechanical load also changes, the line of correction must be adjusted accordingly during spinal manipulation.
The measurements of the facet joint angles in three planes, presented here, and the results of Cotterill et al. (1986) on Th6, Th12, and L3 in two planes [30] are insufficient to enable conclusions to be drawn regarding the entire population. The coordinate system was defined according to the work of Cotterill et al., with the y-axis in a caudocranial direction, the x-axis in a laterolateral direction, and the z-axis in a dorsoventral direction. Cotterill et al. examined the superior (cranial) facet joints of ten 6–8-week-old calves. The measurements presented here were performed on an adult specimen. On Th6, Cotterill et al. found an almost vertical alignment (−82.9° +- 5.7 on the x-axis) and discovered a lateral tilt of about −27.3° ± 8.4 on the y-axis, with a slightly backwards orientation [30]. The deviation from the y-axis in the measurements presented here was about 43°. On Th12, Cotterill et al. found an inclination of −70° ± 3.9 on the x-axis [30], whereas the measurements presented here displayed an almost vertical alignment of 9°, similar to the published value, on Th6. According to Cotterill et al., the inclination on the y-axis is −15.9° ± 7.9 [30]. On L3, the measurements of Cotterill et al. revealed again an almost vertical alignment of −87.2° ± 4.2 on the x-axis [30], whereas the measurement presented here showed an inclination of 24°. On the y-axis, both working groups found similar tilt values of 27.9 ± 8.0 [30] and 24°. The differences could be due to measurement errors from an insufficient measurement technique, individual characteristics, or breed-related differences. Further research is required to clarify the variations in bovine facet joint inclination. In the meantime, the careful palpation of movement is required to determine the individual inclination of the facet joint being treated.
To perform motion analysis, knowledge about the normal spine mobility is required. In cattle, the largest mobility in the trunk segment is described for areas cranial to Th13 [36]. A further increase in mobility was described in the lumbosacral joint [37]. Wilke et al. specified this through the examination of the thoracic and lumbar spine of a calf [38]. In their study, sagittal bending was shown to increase from Th6 to L6 (around 4° at Th6 to 10.4° at L6), lateral bending had two regional maxima (5.2° at Th9–10 and 6.7° at L2–3) and two minima (4.4° at Th7–8 and 4.2° at Th12–13), and axial rotation in the thoracic spine was about 4.5°, while in the lumbar spine and caudal thoracic vertebrae it was around 1.1°. Th12 is identified as a transitional vertebra [39].
The present case reports show different chiropractic treatment approaches and their varying efficacy in the treatment of spinal problems and lameness in dairy cows. The response of the cows to chiropractic treatment varies greatly depending on the initial findings. In cases 1 to 4, a significant improvement in the symptoms or the absence of symptoms was achieved. In some cases, a combination of chiropractic, mobilisation, and massage was used; in case 3, manual lymph drainage was also performed. In cases 1 and 3, anti-inflammatory medication and vitamin supplements were also used, which appeared to have a supportive effect. However, it remains unclear whether the improvements were due to the chiropractic treatment alone or whether the complementary medication played an important role. The cows showed an involuntary extension of the hind limb when standing and walking. This appeared to be associated with painful processes in the spinal column and disappeared in the course of treatment. Similar behaviour occurs in claw diseases [40] or in bovine spastic syndrome [41]. The former can be excluded due to regular claw control. The cramps in bovine spastic syndrome are more prolonged and last 15–30 s, even in the mild initial phase [42].
The treatment intervals and the number of treatment sessions required varied greatly between the cases, which indicates that the therapy was individually adapted. In most cases, a gradual improvement was observed, which occurred faster in some cows (e.g., case 2) than in others (e.g., case 1) according to the initial findings. Case 5 had a pelvic obliquity that could not be corrected; the symptoms could only be alleviated but not eliminated. In summary, the case reports show that chiropractic treatment can be a valuable therapeutic option for dairy cows with spinal and limb problems, but that it is dependent on the individual problem. In some of the presented cases (1 and 3), access to pasture and combination with other therapeutic measures probably contributed to the improvement of symptoms. A multidisciplinary approach could be helpful.
Often, the detection of lameness does not necessarily lead to treatment, which could be due to the underestimation of the problem or due to financial or management reasons [43]. Lameness leads to unphysiological postures of the back [44], which cause additional pain and movement restriction. Lameness results in significant economic losses in cattle farming due to a combination of direct costs and indirect effects on productivity [45]. A human clinical trial concluded that chiropractic treatment, in addition to usual medical care, significantly improved pain intensity, fitness for work, and the satisfaction of patients with back pain [46]. In this paper, chiropractic treatment was also partially combined with the administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (case 1 and 3). Medication-free lameness management is particularly important in organic farms [47], which highlights the potential use of manual therapy, such as chiropractic treatment. A meta-analysis of risk factors for lameness in dairy cows identified the first 120 days of lactation, large herds, and higher parity [48], which is why we recommend monitoring these cows specifically and possibly presenting them to a veterinarian or manual therapist as a preventive measure.

6. Conclusions

The authors intended this case report to stimulate research into evidence-based chiropractic care, and to present further treatment options within the herd management. Both the analysis of a larger number of cases and the conduct of clinical trials are desirable to validate its effectiveness. Chiropractic treatment can be integrated into herd management and can be provided by certified veterinary chiropractors in an integrative (not complementary) manner in relation to conventional medical care. In this study, a gradual improvement was generally observed, although this varied between cases depending on the initial findings. Chiropractic treatment can relieve pain without the waiting period required by many medications. It can promote healing and improve performance parameters and cow comfort. This is desirable from an economic and animal welfare perspective.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: F.C.W.; data curation: F.C.W., F.H. and J.W.; formal analysis: F.C.W., F.H. and J.W.; investigation: F.C.W., F.H. and J.W.; methodology: F.C.W., F.H. and J.W.; project administration: F.C.W.; resources: F.C.W. and C.K.W.M.; supervision: F.C.W.; validation: F.C.W., F.H., C.K.W.M. and J.W.; visualisation: F.C.W., F.H. and J.W.; writing—original draft preparation: F.C.W.; writing—review and editing: F.C.W., F.H., J.W. and C.K.W.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external finding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable. The authors confirm that the ethical policies of the journal, as noted on the journal’s author guidelines page, have been adhered to. No ethical approval was required for this particular case report. The treated animals were regular patients in a chiropractic practice. One vertebral column from an adult cow was obtained from a slaughterhouse.

Informed Consent Statement

The authors have informed consent from the animal’s owner to use the animal’s data to publish this case report.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analysed during this case are included in this article. Further enquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the Lehr- und Forschungsgut Oberholz for the continuous observation of the cows, to the International Academy of Veterinary Chiropractic for advice on the chiropractic treatment of cows.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. FVE. FVE Position on Welfare of Dairy Cows: Lameness; FVE: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. Dolecheck, K.; Bewley, J. Animal board invited review: Dairy cow lameness expenditures, losses and total cost. Animal 2018, 12, 1462–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Whay, H.R.; Shearer, J.K. The Impact of Lameness on Welfare of the Dairy Cow. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2017, 33, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. McConnel, C.S.; McNeil, A.A.; Hadrich, J.C.; Lombard, J.E.; Garry, F.B.; Heller, J. Dairy cow disability weights. Prev. Vet. Med. 2017, 143, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. World Federation of Chiropractic. WFC Dictionary Definition: Definition of Chiropractic. Available online: https://www.wfc.org/what-is-chiropractic (accessed on 16 February 2022).
  6. Dagenais, S.; Haldeman, S. Chiropractic. Prim. Care 2002, 29, 419–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jayaseelan, D.J.; Tow, N.S. Cervicothoracic junction thrust manipulation in the multimodal management of a patient with temporomandibular disorder. J. Man. Manip. Ther. 2016, 24, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Joshi, S.; Balthillaya, G.; Neelapala, Y.V.R. Immediate effects of cervicothoracic junction mobilization versus thoracic manipulation on the range of motion and pain in mechanical neck pain with cervicothoracic junction dysfunction: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Chiropr. Man. Therap. 2020, 28, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ward, J.S.; Coats, J.; Ramcharan, M.; Humphries, K.; Tong, T.; Chu, C. Thoracolumbar spinal manipulation and the immediate impact on exercise performance. J. Chiropr. Med. 2012, 11, 233–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yu, H.; Hou, S.; Wu, W.; He, X. Upper cervical manipulation combined with mobilization for the treatment of atlantoaxial osteoarthritis: A report of 10 cases. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2011, 34, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kültür, T.; Çiftçi, A.; Okumuş, M.; Doğan, M.; Arıkan Durmaz, Ş.; Neşelioğlu, S.; Erel, Ö. Evaluation of the effect of chiropractic manipulative treatment on oxidative stress in sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Turk. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2020, 66, 176–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Acutt, E.V.; Le Jeune, S.S.; Pypendop, B.H. Evaluation of the Effects of Chiropractic on Static and Dynamic Muscle Variables in Sport Horses. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2019, 73, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Haussler, K.K. Back problems. Chiropractic evaluation and management. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equine Pract. 1999, 15, 195–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Haussler, K.K.; Hill, A.E.; Puttlitz, C.M.; McIlwraith, C.W. Effects of vertebral mobilization and manipulation on kinematics of the thoracolumbar region. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2007, 68, 508–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Haussler, K.K.; Manchon, P.T.; Donnell, J.R.; Frisbie, D.D. Effects of Low-Level Laser Therapy and Chiropractic Care on Back Pain in Quarter Horses. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2020, 86, 102891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Domingues, K.; Franco, N.H.; Rodrigues, I.; Stilwell, G.; Magalhães-Sant’Ana, M. Bibliometric trend analysis of non-conventional (alternative) therapies in veterinary research. Vet. Q. 2022, 42, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tratsis, I. Chiropraktik bei einer Kuh? Na klar! Hands-Man. Phys. Ther. Tiermed. 2020, 2, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. LoGiudice, R.J.; Rivera, P.L. Veterinary Spinal Manipulative Therapy or Animal Chiropractic in Veterinary Rehabilitation. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pract. 2023, 53, 757–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Haussler, K.K.; Holt, T.N. Spinal Mobilization and Manipulation in Horses. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equine Pract. 2022, 38, 509–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Gross, A.; Miller, J.; D’Sylva, J.; Burnie, S.J.; Goldsmith, C.H.; Graham, N.; Haines, T.; Brønfort, G.; Hoving, J.L. Manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2010, CD004249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Crawford, J.P. Chiropractic intervention in the treatment of joint and soft tissue disorders. Can. J. Appl. Physiol. 1999, 24, 279–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Triano, J.J.; McGregor, M.; Skogsbergh, D.R. Use of chiropractic manipulation in lumbar rehabilitation. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 1997, 34, 394–404. [Google Scholar]
  23. Bergmann, T.F.; Peterson, D.H. Chiropractic Technique: Principles and Procedures, 3rd ed.; Mosby/Elsevier: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2010; ISBN 9780323049696. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ellenberger, W.; Baum, H. Handbuch der Vergleichenden Anatomie der Haustiere, 18. Auflage; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1974; ISBN 9783642808326. [Google Scholar]
  25. Budras, K.-D.; Wünsche, A. Atlas der Anatomie des Rindes: Lehrbuch für Tierärzte und Studierende; Schlütersche: Hannover, Germany, 2002; ISBN 3877066739. [Google Scholar]
  26. König, H.E.; Liebich, H.-G. Anatomie der Haustiere; Georg Thieme Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 2019; ISBN 9783132425095. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nickel, R.; Schummer, A.; Wille, K.-H.; Wilkens, H. Passiver Bewegungsapparat, Skelettsystem: Knochenlehre, Osteologia. In Bewegungsapparat, 8., Unveränd. Aufl.; Nickel, R., Schummer, A., Seiferle, E., Frewein, J., Augsburger, H., Eds.; Parey: Stuttgart, Germany, 2004; pp. 15–214. ISBN 9783830441496. [Google Scholar]
  28. Dyce, K.M.; Sack, W.O.; Wensing, C.J.G. Anatomie der Haustiere: Lehrbuch für Studium und Praxis, 1. Aufl.; Enke: Stuttgart, Germany, 1991; ISBN 3432986319. [Google Scholar]
  29. Salomon, F.-V.; Geyer, H.; Gille, U. Anatomie für die Tiermedizin; Georg Thieme Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 2020; ISBN 9783132426757. [Google Scholar]
  30. Cotterill, P.C.; Kostuik, J.P.; D’Angelo, G.; Fernie, G.R.; Maki, B.E. An anatomical comparison of the human and bovine thoracolumbar spine. J. Orthop. Res. 1986, 4, 298–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Flower, F.C.; Weary, D.M. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Haussler, K.K.; Hesbach, A.L.; Romano, L.; Goff, L.; Bergh, A. A Systematic Review of Musculoskeletal Mobilization and Manipulation Techniques Used in Veterinary Medicine. Animals 2021, 11, 2787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Frank, L.R.; Roynard, P.F.P. Veterinary Neurologic Rehabilitation: The Rationale for a Comprehensive Approach. Top. Companion Anim. Med. 2018, 33, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Halle, K.S.; Granhus, A. Veterinary Chiropractic Treatment as a Measure to Prevent the Occurrence of Spondylosis in Boxers. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Olson, V.L. Evaluation of joint mobilization treatment. A method. Phys. Ther. 1987, 67, 351–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sisson, S.; Grossman, H. Ruminant osteology. In Sisson and Grossman’s—The Anatomy of the Domestic Animals, 5th ed.; Getty, R., Ed.; Saunders: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1975; pp. 741–746. ISBN 978-0721641027. [Google Scholar]
  37. Dyce, K.M.; Wensing, C.J.G. Essentials of Bovine Anatomy; Oosthoek: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1971; ISBN 9789060465639. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wilke, H.J.; Krischak, S.T.; Wenger, K.H.; Claes, L.E. Load-displacement properties of the thoracolumbar calf spine: Experimental results and comparison to known human data. Eur. Spine J. 1997, 6, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Belyaev, R.I.; Kuznetsov, A.N.; Prilepskaya, N.E. A mechanistic approach for the calculation of intervertebral mobility in mammals based on vertebrae osteometry. J. Anat. 2021, 238, 113–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Straiton, E.C. Rinder- und Kälberkrankheiten Erkennen, Behandeln, Vermeiden + Geburtshilfe, 3., Überarb. Aufl.; BLV-Verlagsges: München, Germany, 1983; ISBN 3405129109. [Google Scholar]
  41. Goeckmann, V.; Rothammer, S.; Medugorac, I. Bovine spastic syndrome: A review. Vet. Rec. 2018, 182, 693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Scarratt, W.K. Cerebellar disease and disease characterized by dysmetria or tremors. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2004, 20, 275–286, vi. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Leach, K.A.; Whay, H.R.; Maggs, C.M.; Barker, Z.E.; Paul, E.S.; Bell, A.K.; Main, D.C.J. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 1. Understanding barriers to lameness control on dairy farms. Res. Vet. Sci. 2010, 89, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Urban-Chmiel, R.; Mudroň, P.; Abramowicz, B.; Kurek, Ł.; Stachura, R. Lameness in Cattle-Etiopathogenesis, Prevention and Treatment. Animals 2024, 14, 1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Davis-Unger, J.; Pajor, E.A.; Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.; Marti, S.; Dorin, C.; Spackman, E.; Orsel, K. Economic impacts of lameness in feedlot cattle. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2017, 1, 467–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Goertz, C.M.; Long, C.R.; Vining, R.D.; Pohlman, K.A.; Walter, J.; Coulter, I. Effect of Usual Medical Care Plus Chiropractic Care vs Usual Medical Care Alone on Pain and Disability Among US Service Members with Low Back Pain: A Comparative Effectiveness Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw. Open 2018, 1, e180105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pinedo, P.; Velez, J.; Manriquez, D.; Bothe, H. Treatment Options for Lameness Disorders in Organic Dairies. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2017, 33, 377–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Oehm, A.W.; Knubben-Schweizer, G.; Rieger, A.; Stoll, A.; Hartnack, S. A systematic review and meta-analyses of risk factors associated with lameness in dairy cows. BMC Vet. Res. 2019, 15, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vetsci 11 00570 g001
Figure 1. Photographs and measurements of the facet joint inclination (measured angles are indicated with the yellow lines) from (A) lateral (x-axis), (B) cranial (y-axis), and (C) dorsal (z-axis) perspectives of the facet joint between C2 and C3. A detailed view of the facet joint is provided within the images.
Figure 1. Photographs and measurements of the facet joint inclination (measured angles are indicated with the yellow lines) from (A) lateral (x-axis), (B) cranial (y-axis), and (C) dorsal (z-axis) perspectives of the facet joint between C2 and C3. A detailed view of the facet joint is provided within the images.
Vetsci 11 00570 g001
Vetsci 11 00570 g002
Figure 2. Chiropractic listing system.
Figure 2. Chiropractic listing system.
Vetsci 11 00570 g002
Table 1. The inclination of the facet joints along an adult bovine spine.
Table 1. The inclination of the facet joints along an adult bovine spine.
Facet Jointx-Axisy-Axisz-Axis
C1/C2-14°65°
C2/C330°44°20°
C3/C416°46°36°
C4/C525°57°21°
C5/C619°50°33°
C6/C727°43°35°
C7/Th115°64°14°
Th1/Th219°66°-
Th2/Th315°44°15°
Th3/Th421°31°15°
Th4/Th511°38°-
Th5/Th6-43°-
Th6/Th7-53°17°
Th7/Th817°57°3°
Th8/Th92°81°7°
Th9/Th1012°56°3°
Th10/Th11-37°1°
Th11/Th129°-30°
Th12/Th1310°-32°
Th13/L1--32°
L1/L236°16°33°
L2/L324°24°26°
L3/L422°19°28°
L4/L520°50°18°
L5/L6-38°22°
L6/S114°31°18°
Table 2. Examination of cow 1.
Table 2. Examination of cow 1.
No. of the AppointmentObservation of the Stable StaffExamination in the StandVisual Gait AnalysisChiropractic Findings
1slight kicks with right hind limb when standing and walkingslight kyphosis of the dorsal line, kicks out backwards with the right hind limb after getting up, hypermobility in the thoracolumbar transition, restricted lateroflexion of the lumbar spine, reduced weight bearing on the right hind limblow-grade kyphosis of the back, low-slung head, stiff back and lack of pelvic rotation, LS 3C5 BR,
Th3 PL,
Th6 PL,
10th rib P on both sides,
L6 PR,
PI Ilium L
2
(after 3 weeks)		no kicks when standing, but when walking only on slippery surfacesslightly raised back line, slight hypermobility in the thoracolumbar transition, limited lateroflexion of the lumbar spine,
evenly loaded hind limbs		low-grade kyphosis, severely restricted pelvic rotation and lateroflexion of the lumbar spine, normal head posture,
LS 3		C3 BL, Th3 P,
Th4 PR,
L6 PR, L5 P,
L3 PR,
AS Ilium R
3
(after 4 weeks)		cows are on pasture, no kicking on the pastureminor restriction of neck extension, slightly raised dorsal line, no cramping on pastureslightly raised back line, no cramping on pasture but slight kicks with right hindlimb on a slippery surface in the stable, severely restricted pelvic rotation and lateroflexion of the thoracic spine, slight lameness of the right forelimb, LS 3C0 SR,
Th7 PL,
Th5 PL,
Th8 P,
Th11 P, mobilisation along the lumbar spine
4
(after 9 weeks)		clear further improvementlittle kick of the right hind limb after getting upno kicks, slight kyphosis of the back line, moderately restricted pelvic rotation, slight hypermobility of the thoracolumbar transition, LS 2C6 BL,
Th3 PL,
Th4 PR,
L1 PR, L5 PR,
PI Ilium R,
AS Ilium L
Table 3. Examination of cow 2.
Table 3. Examination of cow 2.
No. of the AppointmentObservation of the Stable StaffExamination in the StandVisual Gait AnalysisChiropractic Findings
1toe tip ulcer of boths hind limbs two months ago; since then, partial tremor of the hind limbspositioning the hind limbs slightly more under the abdomen, slight kyphosismoderate kyphosis, slight lameness of both hind limbs during the late stance phase,
LS 3.5		Th9 PR, L4 PL,
PI Ilium R
2
(after 2 weeks)		improvement one week after treatmentnormal distributed load on the hind limbsrestricted rotation in thoracic spine, slight lameness of the right hind limb (during stance phase), slight kyphosis, hypermobility of the sacrolumbar transition, LS 3Th4 PR, L5 PR
3
(after 3 weeks)		got better within one week after treatment; since then, without symptoms---
Table 4. Examination of cow 3.
Table 4. Examination of cow 3.
No. of the AppointmentObservation of the Stable StaffExamination in the StandVisual Gait AnalysisChiropractic Findings
1sudden lameness in the last 3–4 months despite claw health, kicks out backwards when walking and when standing in the milking parlour, increases with excitement kicks out backwards when shifting weight from one side to the other and when agitated, dorsoventral flexion of thoracic and lumbar spine moderately restricted, poorly muscledkicks out backwards when starting to walk and when changing tempo, moderate lordosis of sacrolumbar region, and kyphosis of thoracic spine, short steps, LS 3C1 PL, C5 BL, Th2 P, Th13 P, 12th rib PL,
L4 P, AS Ilium R,
1st–3rd coccygeal vertebrae restricted,
very much mobilisation in thoracic and lumbar spine necessary
2
(after 3 weeks)		no kicks of the hind limbs the first three days after treatment, then again in the milking parlour and under stress (herding) as shown before the first treatment; in group (free movement), more “stable”/less kicksclear improvement in the mobility of the thoracic spine, mild stiffness of the lumbar spine, longissimus dorsi muscle (lumbar); gluteal muscles on the right side moderately warm and increased in sizemild lordosis of sacrolumbar region, backward kicks only in transition from stand to walk, more active hind limb during walk than usually shown in cattle, short steps, LS 2.5L6 PL, AS Ilium R
3
(after 2 weeks)		no kicks of the hind limbs the first two days after the last treatment, then again with the right hind limb and less frequently with the left, clearly less frequently in the milking parlourmild nodular tension of the right gluteus region (multiple foci)right hind limb seldomly kicks backwards during herding, moderately limited pelvic rotation, regular movement in the back line, spacious (normal) steps, LS 2C7 BR, Th10 PR, Th11 PL, L6 P, S-A L
4
(after 3 weeks)		only right hind limb kicks rarely, further improvement when standing in the milking parlourmoderate oedema in the right gluteal region, mild oedema in the left gluteal region,
mild nodular tension of the longissimus dorsi muscle (lumbar, more on the right side than left)		right hind limb seldomly kicks backwards during herding, LS 2Th2 PR, Th8 P, L3 P,
PI Ilium R
5
(after 4 weeks)		cows are on pasture, no kicking on the pasture, only right hind limb kicks rarely (equivalent to about 20% of the initial symptoms)mild oedema in the right gluteal region, mild nodular tension in the right gluteal regionright hind limb seldom kicks backwards on a slippery surface in the stable, no symptoms on the pasture (lame-free, even and regular gait), LS 1.5C6 BL, Th6 PL,
Th10 PR, Th11 P,
L3 PL, S-B P,
AS Ilium R
6
(after 9 weeks)		no symptoms---
Table 5. Examination of cow 4.
Table 5. Examination of cow 4.
No. of the AppointmentObservation of the Stable StaffExamination in the StandVisual Gait AnalysisChiropractic Findings
1lamenessless weight bearing of the right hind limbslight lameness of the right hind limb, no pelvic movement,
LS 2.5		C3 BR, C6 BR, Th5 P, Th6 PR, L4 PL, L5 P,
S-A L, PI Ilium R
2
(after 3 weeks)		clear improvement, calmer in the milking parlour, turns right hind limb slightly outwards when walkingnormal distributed load on the hind limbsminimal lameness of the right hind limb, regular movement of the back and pelvis,
LS 2.0		10th rib RP, L3 P,
AS Ilium R
3
(after 2 weeks)		clear improvement, increased toe sensibility after claw trimming---
4
(after 3 weeks		clear further improvement---
5
(after 4 weeks		normal gait---
Table 6. Examination of cow 5.
Table 6. Examination of cow 5.
No. of the AppointmentObservation of the Stable StaffExamination in the StandVisual Gait AnalysisChiropractic Findings
1lameness and restlessness in the milking parlourchiropracticly uncorrectable pelvic obliquityslight lameness of the right hindlimb (shortened protraction phase and abduction),
LS 2.5		C5 BR, Th8 PR,
L3 PR, PI Ilium R
2
(after 3 weeks)		calm in the milking parloursame findingssame findingsTh8 PR
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wagner, F.C.; Hesse, F.; Wehrle, J.; Mülling, C.K.W. Chiropractic Treatment of Dairy Cows. Vet. Sci. 2024, 11, 570. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci11110570

AMA Style

Wagner FC, Hesse F, Wehrle J, Mülling CKW. Chiropractic Treatment of Dairy Cows. Veterinary Sciences. 2024; 11(11):570. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci11110570

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wagner, Franziska C., Felicitas Hesse, Johanna Wehrle, and Christoph K. W. Mülling. 2024. "Chiropractic Treatment of Dairy Cows" Veterinary Sciences 11, no. 11: 570. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci11110570

APA Style

Wagner, F. C., Hesse, F., Wehrle, J., & Mülling, C. K. W. (2024). Chiropractic Treatment of Dairy Cows. Veterinary Sciences, 11(11), 570. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci11110570

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