Evaluating differences in milk production, reproductive performance, and survival associated with vaginal discharge characteristics and fever in postpartum dairy cows.

Uterine disease dairy cow fever vaginal discharge

Journal

Journal of dairy science
ISSN: 1525-3198
Titre abrégé: J Dairy Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2985126R

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 Apr 2024
Historique:
received: 26 06 2023
accepted: 26 02 2024
medline: 6 4 2024
pubmed: 6 4 2024
entrez: 5 4 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The objective was to assess differences in productive and reproductive performance, and survival associated with vaginal discharge characteristics and fever in postpartum dairy cows located in Western and Southern states of the U.S.A. This retrospective cohort study included data from 3 experiments conducted in 9 dairies. Vaginal discharge was evaluated twice within 12 DIM and scored on a 5-point scale. The highest score observed for each cow was used for group assignment (VD group) as follows: VD 1 and 2 (VD 1/2; n = 1,174) = clear mucus/lochia with or without flecks of pus; VD 3 (n = 1,802) = mucopurulent with < 50% pus; VD 4 (n = 1,643) = mucopurulent with ≥50% of pus or non-fetid reddish/brownish mucous, n = 1,643; VD 5 = fetid, watery, and reddish/brownish, n = 1,800. All VD 5 cows received treatment according to each herd's protocol. Rectal temperature was assessed in a subset of VD 5 cows, and subsequently divided into Fever (rectal temperature ≥39.5°C; n = 334) and NoFever (n = 558) groups. A smaller proportion of cows with VD 5 (67.6%) resumed ovarian cyclicity compared with VD 1/2 (76.2%) and VD 4 (72.9%) cows; however, a similar proportion of VD5 and VD 3 (72.6%) cows resumed ovarian cyclicity. A smaller proportion of VD 5 (85.8%) cows received at least one artificial insemination (AI) compared with VD 1/2 (91.5%), VD 3 (91.0%), or VD 4 (91.6%) cows. Although we did not detect differences in pregnancy at first AI according to VD, fewer cows with VD 5 (64.4%) were pregnant at 300 DIM than cows with VD 1/2 (76.5%), VD 3 (76.2%), or VD 4 (74.7%). Hazard of pregnancy by 300 DIM was smaller for VD 5 compared with VD 1/2, VD 3, or VD 4 cows. A greater proportion of VD 5 cows were removed from the herd within 300 DIM compared with other VD groups. There was 760 kg lesser milk production within 300 DIM for VD 5 compared with VD 2, VD 3, and VD 4, whereas VD 2, VD 3, and VD 4 had similar milk production. We did not detect an association between fever at diagnosis of VD 5 and reproductive performance or milk production. A greater proportion of VD 5 cows without fever were removed from the herd by 300 DIM compared with VD 5 cows with fever. Differences in productive and reproductive performance, and removal of the herd were restricted to fetid, watery, and reddish/brownish vaginal discharge, which was independent of fever.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38580147
pii: S0022-0302(24)00637-4
doi: 10.3168/jds.2023-23905
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Dairy Science Association®. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Auteurs

C C Figueiredo (CC)

Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99163, USA. Electronic address: caio.figueiredo@wsu.edu.

S Casaro (S)

Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, D. H. Barron Reproductive and Perinatal Biology Research Program, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.

F Cunha (F)

Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, D. H. Barron Reproductive and Perinatal Biology Research Program, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.

V R Merenda (VR)

Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA.

E B de Oliveira (EB)

Department of Population Health and Reproduction, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.

P Pinedo (P)

Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA.

J E P Santos (JEP)

Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA.

R C Chebel (RC)

Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, D. H. Barron Reproductive and Perinatal Biology Research Program, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA; Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA.

G M Schuenemann (GM)

Department of Veterinary Preventative Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.

R C Bicalho (RC)

FERA Diagnostics and Biologicals, College Station, TX 77845, USA.

R O Gilbert (RO)

School of Veterinary Medicine, Ross University, St. Kitts, West Indies, KN.

S Rodriguez Zas (SR)

Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.

C M Seabury (CM)

College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA.

G Rosa (G)

Department of Animal Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA.

W W Thatcher (WW)

Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA.

R S Bisinotto (RS)

Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, D. H. Barron Reproductive and Perinatal Biology Research Program, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.

K N Galvão (KN)

Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, D. H. Barron Reproductive and Perinatal Biology Research Program, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA. Electronic address: galvaok@ufl.edu.

Classifications MeSH