Lameness and leg injuries are both painful and prevalent across the dairy industry, and are a major welfare concern. There has been a considerable amount of research focused on investigating the risk factors associated with lameness and injuries and how they might be prevented and treated. The objectives of this narrative review were to summarize herd-level prevalence estimates, risk factors, strategies for prevention, control, and treatment of these conditions, and the barriers to best practice adoption for lameness and injuries on dairy farms. There is a relatively high within-herd prevalence of lameness on dairy farms globally, with a recent systematic review estimating the mean prevalence at 22.8%. Similarly, there is a relatively high prevalence of hock injuries, with within-herd estimates ranging from 12% to 81% of cows affected. Knee and neck injuries have been reported to be less common, with 6% to 43% and 1% to 33%, respectively. Numerous risk factors have been associated with the incidence of lameness, notably housing (e.g., access to pasture, bedding depth, bedding type, flooring type, stall design), management (e.g., stall cleanliness, frequency of trimming, holding times, stocking density), and cow-level (e.g., body condition, parity, injured hocks) factors. Risk factors associated with hock injuries can be similarly classified into housing (e.g., bedding type and depth, outdoor access, parlor type, stall design), management (e.g., bedding depth, cleanliness), and cow (e.g., parity, days in milk, lameness) factors. Key preventative approaches for lameness include routine preventative and corrective hoof trimming, improving hoof cushioning and traction through access to pasture or adding rubber flooring, deep-bedded stalls, sand bedding, ensuring appropriate stocking densities, reduced holding times, and the frequent use of routine footbaths. Very little research has been conducted on hock, knee, and neck injury prevention and recovery. Numerous researchers have concluded that both extrinsic (e.g., time, money, space) and intrinsic (e.g., farmer attitude, perception, priorities, and mindset) barriers exist to addressing lameness and injuries on dairy farms. There are many diverse stakeholders in lameness and injury management including the farmer, farm staff, veterinarian, hoof trimmer, nutritionist, and other advisors. Addressing dairy cattle lameness and injuries must, therefore, consider the people involved, as it is these people who are influencing and implementing on-farm decisions related to lameness prevention, treatment, and control.

The use of qualitative research in dairy science has increased considerably in recent years, providing the opportunity to inform research and practice. This review aims to enhance the accessibility of qualitative research among a range of audiences and specifically: (1) provide an overview of what qualitative research is and the value it can bring to scientific inquiries in the dairy context, (2) illustrate the emergence of qualitative dairy science research in the past 15 to 20 years, (3) outline the role of the researcher and key philosophical assumptions underlying qualitative research, (4) describe qualitative research approaches and methods used in dairy science research, and (5) highlight key aspects of qualitative inquiry used to ensure research trustworthiness. Qualitative approaches in dairy science enable researchers to understand myriad topics including stakeholder relationships, decision-making, and behaviors regarding dairy cattle management, animal welfare, and disease prevention and control measures. Approaches that were used often for qualitative data collection were individual interviews and focus groups, and variations of thematic analysis were common analytical frameworks. To assess public values, attitudes, and perceptions, mixed methods questionnaires that combined quantitative data with qualitative data from open-ended questions were used regularly. Although still used infrequently, action research and participatory approaches have the potential to bridge the research-implementation gap by facilitating group-based learning and on-farm changes. Some publications described the philosophical assumptions inherent to qualitative research, and many authors included reflexivity and positionality statements. Although a comprehensive description of strategies to meet trustworthiness criteria for qualitative research was uncommon, many publications mentioned certain aspects of trustworthiness, such as member checking, researcher triangulation, and the recording of reflexive notes. Qualitative research has been used to deepen our understanding of phenomena relevant to the dairy sector and has opened the door for a broad array of new opportunities. In addition to having merit on its own, qualitative research can guide, inform, and expand on quantitative research, and an understanding of the core pillars of qualitative research can foster interdisciplinary collaborations.

A pooled analysis of seven cross-sectional studies from Newfoundland and Labrador, Waterloo and Hamilton Regions, Ontario and Vancouver, East Kootenay and Northern Interior Regions, British Columbia (2001 to 2007) was performed to investigate the drinking water consumption patterns of Canadians and to identify factors associated with the volume of tap water consumed. The mean volume of tap water consumed was 1.2 L/day, with a large range (0.03 to 9.0 L/day). In-home water treatment and interactions between age and gender and age and bottled water use were significantly associated with the volume of tap water consumed in multivariable analyses. Approximately 25% (2,221/8,916) of participants were classified as bottled water users, meaning that 75% or more of their total daily drinking water intake was bottled. Approximately 48.6% (4,307/8,799) of participants used an in-home treatment method to treat their tap water for drinking purposes. This study provides a broader geographic perspective and more current estimates of Canadian water consumption patterns than previous studies. The identified factors associated with daily water consumption could be beneficial for risk assessors to identify individuals who may be at greater risk of waterborne illness.

The first objective of this study was to investigate the public perceptions of private water and alternative sources with respect to safety, quality, testing and treatment in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. The second objective was to provide public health practitioners with recommendations for improving knowledge translation (KT) efforts in NL, based on assessments of respondents’ perceived information needs and preferred KT methods. A cross-sectional telephone survey of 618 households with private water supplies was conducted in March-April, 2007. Questions pertained to respondents’ perceptions of their tap water, water concerns, alternative water use, well characteristics, and water testing behaviours. Approximately 94% of households were supplied by private wells (50% drilled and 50% dug wells), while 6% obtained water from roadside ponds, rivers or springs (RPRS). While 85% rated their water quality highly, 55% nevertheless had concerns about its overall safety. Approximately 11% of respondents never tested their water, and of the 89% that had, 80% tested at frequencies below provincial recommendations for bacterial testing. More than one-third of respondents reported treating their water in the home, and 78% employed active carbon filtration methods. Respondents wanted more information on testing options and advice on effective treatment methods. Targeted advertising through television, flyers/brochures and/or radio is recommended as a first step to increase awareness. More active KT methods involving key stakeholders may be most effective in improving testing and treatment behaviour. The results presented here can assist public health practitioners in tailoring current KT initiatives to influence well owner stewardship behaviour.

Lameness is a leading animal welfare concern in the dairy industry. Multiple stakeholders are involved in lameness management on a dairy farm, including farmers, hoof trimmers, and veterinarians. This study sought to explore perceptions of lameness, perceptions of roles in lameness management, and barriers to improved lameness management in these groups. Fourteen homogeneous focus groups were held in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New York from April 2017 to March 2020; 5 with farmers (n = 31), 4 with hoof trimmers (n = 32), and 5 with veterinarians (n = 25). The 1-h facilitated discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and common themes identified through thematic analysis. Lameness was perceived by participants as a complex health problem and one in which the connections between pathogenesis, facilities, and management were not always well understood or easy to change. The complexity of the problem encompassed the lack of agreement on a definition of lameness, normalization to its signs, and the interconnectedness of lameness with other health and management issues. These issues appeared to contribute to resignation by participants that lameness was inevitable. Despite shared concerns about lameness among these groups, respondents reported a lack of communication, especially between hoof trimmers and veterinarians. Participants also voiced a desire to work together more productively, with hoof trimmers and veterinarians valuing the ability to deliver a consistent message to farmers. These findings suggest a need for increased efforts to facilitate collaboration between farmers, hoof trimmers, and veterinarians to improve lameness management on dairy farms.

The objective of this study was to describe mortality rates and euthanasia practices used for cows, heifer calves, and male dairy calves on Canadian dairy farms. An internet survey was administered to Canadian dairy producers between March and April 2015 to collect information on current management practices. Approximately 81% (867/1,076) and 63% (673/1,065) of respondents reported that at least one animal died unassisted and at least one animal was euthanized on the farm in the preceding 12-mo period, respectively. Overall, mean mortality was 8% for cows, and 6 and 2% for preweaning and weaned heifers, respectively. On average, 48, 76, and 89% of all reported mortality events in cows, weaned heifers, and preweaning heifers were recorded as unassisted deaths. Cows that died without assistance were necropsied more often than preweaning heifers dying without assistance; these cows were also necropsied more than cows that were euthanized. Conversely, preweaning heifers that were euthanized were necropsied more frequently than those that died without assistance. Choosing not to perform necropsies on animals that die of unknown causes could represent a missed opportunity to identify cause of death and inform changes to prevent future deaths. The use of a firearm was the most common method for euthanizing cows and heifers (54%) and male dairy calves (51%). Approximately 7% of respondents reported using blunt force to euthanize animals. The use of this method was much higher for euthanasia of male dairy calves (34%) than for heifer calves (7%). Québec respondents euthanized their animals using blunt force more often than farmers from other regions. Further, 53% of respondents using blunt force indicated it was their primary method of calf euthanasia; these results are extremely concerning. Approximately 31% of respondents who reported that they do not use blunt force to euthanize heifers and cows did report using blunt force to euthanize male dairy calves. These results can be used to inform veterinarian-client communication, broader extension tools and programs, and industry policies to improve dairy cattle health and welfare, a goal that is becoming of increasing importance from a consumer assurance perspective.