Dairy cow hoof impact and slide measurements for common Ontario dairy farm floorings

Abstract

In the context of understanding lameness and injury from slipping, our objective was to characterize hoof impact and slide of 5 cows walking on 6 flooring surfaces commonly used in Ontario dairy farms: diamond-grooved concrete (DC), sanded epoxy-covered concrete (EC), grooved rubber mat (GR), high-profile rubber mat (HR), low-profile rubber mat (LR), and turf grass (TG; Kentucky bluegrass/fescue mix). Surface hardness was measured on each surface using a Clegg Impact Soil Tester. Five trained lactating Holstein cows were each walked over all 6 surfaces sequentially in a randomized order. Walking speeds were determined from 60-fps videos. A 3-axis accelerometer attached to the lateral claw of each hindfoot captured continuous horizontal (aH), vertical (aV), lateral (aTLat), and medial (aTMed) accelerations at 2,500 Hz during each trial, from which peak values were identified. Data from 45°-rosette strain gauges glued to the dorsal surface of both medial and lateral hooves allowed for the calculation of principal strains (ε1 and ε2). From continuous data, several data points were extracted from 3 to 6 stances/trial: peak values of aH, aV, and aT for the impact phase of the stance; midstance values of ε1 and ε2 as proxies for force on the foot; magnitudes of normal (i.e., consistent and repeatable) sliding on the surface during the support phase; and 3 timing events to capture the cadence of the motion. All aH and aV signals were inspected onscreen to identify irregularities between the end of impact and beginning of breakover that indicated hoof slipping, which was observed on all surfaces. The effects on all measured variables of surface, cow, speed, and hoof (and all significant higher-order factors) were assessed by ANOVA in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.), after verifying data normality. Values of aHmax, indicating grip on the surface from highest to lowest, ranked the surfaces in this order: LR, DC, HR, GR, EC, and TG. Ranking on aVmax, indicating most to least cushioning of the hoof on impact, ranked the surfaces in this order: DC, HR, GR, EC, LR, and TG. Differences in ranking among these and other significant impact variables indicate that future studies of lameness on different surfaces need to include all significant variables identified here. We detected no surface and strain interactions in either the ε1 or ε2 strain, indicating that the surfaces do not affect the overall loads on the foot at midstance. Additionally, lateral and medial hooves may have different roles in a stance. The results highlight the capacity to evaluate flooring types with this technology, and the study provides a tool for future work to examine the role of flooring types in the causation of lameness.