Transition cow health and management in pasture-based dairy herds: A farmers’ survey

Louise Horan; Joseph Patton; Conor G McAloon; Ángel García-Muñoz; Áine Regan; John F Mee; Ainhoa Valldecabres

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0314987

. 2024 Dec 17;19(12):e0314987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314987

Transition cow health and management in pasture-based dairy herds: A farmers’ survey

Louise Horan ^1,², Joseph Patton ¹, Conor G McAloon ², Ángel García-Muñoz ³, Áine Regan ⁴, John F Mee ¹, Ainhoa Valldecabres ^1,^3,^*

Editor: Angel Abuelo⁵

PMCID: PMC11651598 PMID: 39689143

Abstract

Seasonal-calving pasture-based systems characterize Irish dairy production. During the dry period, cows are housed and offered predominantly grass silage, providing unique transition cow management opportunities. This study aimed to describe transition period disease incidence and management strategies reported by farmers, and to evaluate their associations with herd size and calving pattern to inform and guide research activities and national advisory. An online survey distributed amongst 3,899 Teagasc Technical Dairy Advisory clients yielded 525 responses suitable for analysis. Results are presented for all respondents, by herd size and by the two most common calving systems (spring- [84.3%; 439/521] and split-calving [12.9%; 67/521]). Disease incidence was reportedly highest in cows within their first 3 weeks postpartum (58%; 299/519), in cows calving at the end of the calving season (48%; 245/510) and in multiparous cows (52%; 266/513). Respondents reported treating >3% of their herd for milk fever (23%; 120/521) and retained placenta (13%; 68/518), and <1% of their herd for grass tetany (82.6%; 419/507) and ketosis (72.7%; 368/506). Regarding management, dry cow body condition monitoring (73%; 365/497), dry cow mineral supplementation (61%; 304/497), and Ca supplementation at calving (61%; 314/487) were most commonly reported. Other milk fever prevention strategies supported by research in other production systems were not commonly reported (low K [20%; 101/497] and negative dietary cation-anion difference diet [6%; 31/497]). The odds of reporting keeping records of antibiotic treatment for milk fever were higher (OR = 3.20) for farmers from small compared to large herds. In conclusion, responses to our survey suggest that milk fever is a transition cow health concern in Irish dairy farms. Efforts should be devoted to enhance farmers’ uptake of existing research-supported prophylactic strategies for milk fever and to optimize commonly reported management strategies in the Irish dairy production context.

Introduction

The transition period, encompassing the few weeks before and after calving in dairy cows has been a focus of research over the last few decades. This is not surprising given the range of physical (physiological, immunological and metabolic) and environmental changes which challenge cows’ homeostasis and homeorhesis, often turning into disease and ultimately impairing cows’ welfare and production performance [1]. Despite the large amount of research conducted in the transition period and management strategies for its optimization, it remains a challenge to dairy production. The lack of a single definition for the transition period, as well as varying farmers’ attitudes towards management and veterinarian involvement have been described as barriers to transition cow health and management improvement by a study involving Canadian farmers of confined herds and veterinarians [2]. Redfern et al. [3] interviewed farm advisors and reported that advisors were not providing farmers with focussed advise due to time constraints and fear of responsibility, among others. This lack of focussed advice being given to farmers may also restrain the improvement on transition cow health and management.

While the challenges faced by housed and grazing cows during the transition period may be similar, system-level differences determine the management possibilities and the occurrence of specific diseases for these two production systems. As discussed in a review by Roche [4], there is wide variability among pasture-based dairy production systems, potentially leading to problems unique to each system. In Ireland, dairy herds are predominantly intensive spring-calving herds in which cows graze the majority of their lactational feed requirements and are housed and fed conserved forages during the dry period in the winter months. Forage, mostly grazed pasture, makes up 95% of the Irish dairy cows’ diet [5], creating a need for bespoke transition cow management. Nevertheless, limited transition cow health research has been conducted in this context and there is a lack of national-level disease incidence and management data which is needed to characterize and benchmark against current scientific recommendations for transition cow health and management strategies implemented in this production system.

Quantitative surveys have been used to describe transition cow disease incidence and management strategies in other dairy production systems [6, 7]. However, to the best of our knowledge, the only available survey associated with the Irish dairy cow transition period focuses on calving and colostrum management briefly describing pre-calving nutritional management in Irish dairy herds [8]. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe farmers’ reported disease incidence and management strategies implemented during the transition period, and to quantify their associations with herd size and calving pattern to inform and guide research and advisory activities in transition cow health and management in Irish dairy farms.

Materials and methods

The present study was approved by the University College Dublin Human Research Ethics Committee–Sciences (LS-LR-22-180; HREC-LS). A tick the box question at the beginning of the survey was used to obtain written consent from respondents to use data provided in the survey and data available in their Irish Cattle Breeding Federation (ICBF) profiles for the purpose of this study.

Study population

Teagasc Technical Dairy Advisory clients were the target population of this observational study. Teagasc is the Agriculture and Food Development Authority in the Republic of Ireland and is composed of three main pillars: research, education and advisory/extension. Irish farmers voluntarily sign up to the advisory service which aims at disseminating independent, research-driven technical advice and support to clients. This is achieved by means of offering monthly farmer discussion groups, regular on-farm consultations, and provision of decision support packages and printed/audio material. At the time of the study, a total of 3,899 nationwide Irish dairy farmers were clients of the Teagasc Technical Dairy Advisory services and had provided consent for being contacted for research purposes; this represents 25.5% of Ireland’s dairy farmers in 2022 [9]. The wider dairy farming community could not be targeted in this study due to limitations on personal data access for the researchers.

Survey design and distribution

An online survey was designed to collect information on Irish dairy farmers’ transition period perception, disease incidence and implemented management strategies. For the purpose of this study, focus is given to the disease incidence and implemented management strategies survey sections. Questions were modified according to Teagasc dairy advisors’ suggestions, and the survey was pilot tested on five people who were either dairy farmers or dairy farm managers to assess its effectiveness and estimate the time to completion. The survey was administered using SurveyMonkey (SurveyMonkey Inc., Palo Alto, CA). At the beginning of the survey the transition period was defined as “late dry (late pregnancy if primiparous) to early lactation period” to provide context to respondents. The survey included 18 questions; questions were a mixture of closed (multiple choice; n = 14), open-ended (n = 3) and multiple choice with a comment field to allow respondents to provide a response that was not listed (n = 2). The first question asked respondents to confirm consent to data usage by ticking a box. The second question asked farmers for their herd number for the purpose of data extraction from the ICBF database and was followed by two questions relating to interest in participating in a subsequent on-farm study. Given their lack of association to the survey results, these two questions are not included in the survey available as supplementary material (S1 Table). Afterwards, three questions gathered farmers opinions and perception of the transition period, and the remaining questions (n = 11) gathered information to meet the objectives of this study regarding respondent demographics (n = 2), disease incidence (n = 6) and management strategies (n = 4; S1 Table).

The link to the online survey along with an explanatory message were distributed by text message to Teagasc technical dairy advisory clients (n = 3,899) on the 28^th September 2022. A reminder text was sent on the 4^th October 2022 and the survey was closed for responses 12 days after its opening.

Data processing and analysis

Survey responses were exported to Excel (Excel 2013; Microsoft Corp.) for analysis. Survey responses are confidential. Four respondents answered the survey twice; the survey response with the highest level of completion or that provided in the first attempt, if both responses had the same level of completion, were used in the study. Seventy-two respondents skipped every survey question after providing consent for data usage for research purposes and were not included in the analysis. Responses were checked for signs of bot activity before data analysis by checking timestamps to ensure no respondents completed the survey abnormally fast and by checking responses for any illogical or repeated statements [10].

Answers in the open-ended comment fields of some of the multiple-choice questions were placed into new or already existing categories within the question for data analysis and summarization. Similarly, some answers to the same question were grouped; given the prevalent inclusion of Mg in pre-made mineral mixes used in Ireland (ie Reardon et al. [unpublished]), responses reporting the provision of dry or fresh cow minerals were combined with those reporting Mg supplementation to dry or fresh cows in respective categories named “Mg and/or other mineral supplementation”. The two categories “high-risk cows Ca supplementation at calving” and “all cows routine Ca supplementation at calving” were combined into “Ca supplementation at calving”. Where respondents had the option of selecting an answer or not, the selection of the answer was coded as “yes” and the lack of selection was coded as “no”; consequently, answers such as “I don’t keep records of this disease” and “no, I don’t get advice from any of the above” were no longer considered in the analysis as these were already regarded in the above described code. Given the systematic provision of concentrates during milking to lactating cows [11], responses reporting the provision of feeds other than silage to fresh cows were not considered in this study. Answers to reported herd disease treatment incidence were summarized as “above” or “below” herd alarm levels previously described in a review by Lean and DeGaris [12]; where the described herd alarm level did not coincide with the answer options specified in the survey, the closest category was referred instead. Only diseases with at least 20% of reported treatments at each side of the herd alarm threshold were evaluated for their association with herd size and calving pattern.

Respondents were classified by herd size using information from the Teagasc advisory and ICBF databases, categories were defined based on the Irish national dairy herd average size (93 cows; [16]) as large (>150 cows), above average (100–150 cows), average (60–100 cows), or small (<60 cows); herd size information was obtained for 510 of the respondents. Respondents were also classified by calving pattern using the information provided in the survey (spring-calving only, autumn-calving only, split-calving, or all year-round calving) with only the two most commonly reported calving patterns being used in analysis (spring- and split-calving). Further herd-level descriptive information (305-day milk yield and calving interval) was obtained from the ICBF database.

Summary statistics were produced using the MEANS and FREQ procedures of SAS (Version 9.4; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Univariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between reported disease treatment incidence and implemented management strategies with herd size or calving pattern using the GENMOD procedure of SAS. Statistical models included the logit link function and the Tukey-Kramer adjustment to account for multiple pairwise comparisons (herd size models). Reported odds ratio (OR) represent the ratio for the odds of “yes” vs. “no” answer to each question for respondents belonging to different herd size or calving pattern categories, taking as a reference the most prevalent categories (large herd size and spring-calving). Only OR at P ≤ 0.05 for the comparison are reported in the manuscript. Considering each respondent did not answer every question of the survey, the number of respondents per question (and answer) is provided as appropriate.

Results

A total of 601 survey responses were received between 28^th September and 10^th October (2022); yielding a survey response rate of 15.4%. Excluding the duplicated (n = 4) and blank responses (n = 72), 525 responses were available for analyses. Geographical distribution by county of survey respondents providing a valid Eircode is presented in Fig 1. On average, it took respondents 14 minutes to complete the survey. Responses are reported for all respondents (n = 525), by herd size (large: n = 154, above average: n = 134, average: n = 148, or small: n = 74) or calving pattern for the two most common calving systems (spring-calving: n = 439, or split-calving: n = 67). Denominator values are shown for each question and answer; lower denominator values indicate questions or answers skipped by some respondents.

Fig 1 — Created with MapChart.net and adapted by authors.

Study population

Overall, respondents median herd size was 110 cows (interquartile range [IQR] = 78–162 cows) and mean herd size was 135 cows. Respondents mainly had spring-calving herds (84.3%; 439/521) whilst the remainder operated split-calving (12.9%; 67/521), all year round calving (2.3%; 12/521), or autumn-calving (0.6%; 3/521) herds. For farmers with an active ICBF account with relevant data available, mean 305-day milk yield was 6,857 L (IQR = 6,111–7,162 L; n = 237) and mean calving interval was 377 days (IQR = 367–381 days; n = 323) for 2022. Based on the amount of bought-in feed per cow per year, farmers classified themselves as high-input (>1 tonne of bought-in feed/cow; 51.6% [268/519]), low-input (≤1 tonne of bought-in feed/cow; 47.8% [248/519]), or zero-grazed grass fed all of the time (0.6%; 3/519). Herd descriptions by herd size and calving pattern are provided in S2 Table.

Disease incidence

The complete distribution of reported disease incidence according to stage of calving season, stage of lactation and parity by herd size and calving pattern is presented in S3 Table. Incidence of disease was reported to be highest in freshly calved cows (first 3 weeks after calving; 57.6% [299/519]) and in multiparous cows (51.9%; 266/513). Respondents reported that disease incidence was highest among cows calving at the end of the block calving season (with late calvers; 48.0% [245/510]). However, a substantial cohort of respondents, indicated that problems arise during all of the calving season regardless of the stage (41.4%; 211/510) and that disease equally affects both, primiparous and multiparous cows (43.1% [221/513]; Fig 2). Table 1 shows the complete distribution of the reported proportion of cows treated by condition, herd size and calving pattern. Overall most farmers reported treating ≤3% of their herd for milk fever (77.0%; 401/521) and retained placenta (held cleaning; 86.9% [450/518]), and <1% of their herd for grass tetany (82.6%; 419/507), ketosis (72.7%; 368/506), displaced abomasum and/or digestive problems (71.5%; 373/522), and metritis (52.4%; 263/502) on an ‘average’ year on their farm. The odds of farmers from split-calving herds to report treating >3% of the herd for milk fever were 1.8 times those of farmers from spring-calving herds (OR [95% CI] = 1.78 [1.02–3.12]; P = 0.042). The association between reported incidence of other diseases and herd size or calving pattern was not evaluated given the limited number of farmers reporting to treat a proportion of animals above the herd alarm levels described by Lean and DeGaris [12].

Fig 2 — Reported distribution of highest disease incidence by cow parity (A; n = 513), stage of lactation (B; n = 520) and stage of calving season (C; n = 510) for all respondents to a transition period survey in Ireland.

Table 1. Reported proportion of respondents’ herds treated for health conditions on an “average” year (% of respondents to a transition period survey in Ireland).

	Herd size^a				Herd calving pattern^a
Condition and treated cows	Large	Above average	Average	Small	Spring-calving	Split-calving	All
Milk fever	n = 154	n = 133	n = 146	n = 74	n = 437	n = 67	n = 521
>10%	2.0	1.5	2.7	1.4	1.8	3.0	1.9
7 to 10%	4.6	5.3	2.1	1.4	3.7	4.5	3.8
4 to 6%	14.3	18.8	15.1	24.3	16.0	25.4	17.3
1 to 3%	55.2	48.9	48.0	33.8	49.0	43.3	48.4
<1%	24.0	25.6	32.2	39.2	29.5	23.9	28.6
Retained placenta (held cleaning)	n = 154	n = 133	n = 146	n = 71	n = 435	n = 67	n = 518
>10%	0.0	1.5	0.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.4
7 to 10%	2.6	2.3	2.1	0.0	2.3	1.5	2.1
4 to 6%	11.0	10.5	13.7	5.6	10.1	13.4	10.6
1 to 3%	60.4	54.1	50.0	56.3	53.8	64.2	55.6
<1%	26.0	31.6	34.3	38.0	33.3	20.9	31.3
Metritis	n = 148	n = 127	n = 141	n = 72	n = 424	n = 63	n = 502
>10%	0.0	0.8	0.7	0.0	0.2	1.6	0.4
7 to 10%	2.0	1.6	2.8	1.4	2.4	0.0	2.0
4 to 6%	8.8	7.9	8.5	5.6	8.5	7.9	8.2
1 to 3%	45.3	39.4	29.8	29.2	34.9	47.6	37.1
<1%	43.9	50.4	58.2	63.9	54.0	42.9	52.4
Displaced abomasum	n = 153	n = 134	n = 147	n = 74	n = 438	n = 66	n = 522
>10%	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.2
7 to 10%	0.0	0.8	0.7	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.4
4 to 6%	1.3	1.5	1.4	4.1	1.8	1.5	1.7
1 to 3%	28.8	26.1	24.5	25.7	26.0	25.8	26.3
<1%	69.9	70.9	73.5	70.3	71.5	72.7	71.5
Grass tetany	n = 151	n = 131	n = 140	n = 71	n = 425	n = 65	n = 507
>10%	0.7	0.8	0.0	1.4	0.5	1.5	0.6
7 to 10%	1.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	1.5	0.4
4 to 6%	0.7	2.3	1.4	5.6	2.1	0.0	2.0
1 to 3%	11.9	13.0	16.4	15.5	14.6	10.8	14.4
<1%	85.4	84.0	82.1	77.5	82.6	86.2	82.6
Ketosis	n = 149	n = 130	n = 141	n = 72	n = 425	n = 66	n = 506
>10%	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.2
7 to 10%	0.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.5	0.2
4 to 6%	1.3	3.1	3.6	5.6	3.3	1.5	3.0
1 to 3%	25.5	20.0	25.5	25.0	22.6	33.3	23.9
<1%	72.5	76.2	70.9	69.4	73.9	63.6	72.7

Open in a new tab

^aHerds were categorized by herd size (large: >150 cows, above average: 100–150 cows, average: 60–100 cows, or small: <60 cows) based on the Irish national dairy herd average size (93 cows; [16]), and by calving pattern (spring-calving: cows calving in spring, or split-calving: cows calving in spring and autumn).

Perceived disease importance

The complete distribution of perceived disease importance as reported by herd size and calving pattern is described in S4 Table. Based on incidence and impact in their herd, most of the respondents indicated that occasional cases without major effect on herd performance were observed for milk fever and/or downer cow (73.0%; 381/522), metritis (72.2%; 374/518), ketosis (70.0%; 319/523), retained placenta (held cleaning; 69.1% [357/517]), and displaced abomasum and/or digestive problems (61.9%; 88/522). However, a substantial proportion of the respondents indicated that milk fever was a significant (regularly treating severe cases with some cows lost/culled) or routine (regularly treating cows to control issues) problem in their herds (15.7%; 82/522). Subclinical hypocalcaemia was reported as a significant or routine problem in some herds (9.4%; 49/522), nevertheless, 20.7% (107/517) of farmers reported not knowing if subclinical hypocalcaemia was a problem in their herd.

Disease records

Disease incidence records were kept by <55.0% of respondents for any of the evaluated conditions (Table 2). The odds of farmers from small herds reporting to keep records of metritis incidence were lower than those of farmers from large herds (OR [95% CI] = 0.35 [0.14–0.83]; P = 0.010; Table 3). No evidence of differing odds for reporting keeping incidence records for other conditions among farmers from different herd sizes and calving patterns was observed.

Table 2. Reported dairy cow peripartum condition records kept (% of respondents to a transition period survey in Ireland).

	Herd size^a				Herd calving pattern^a
Condition and record type	Large	Above average	Average	Small	Spring-calving	Split-calving	All
Milk fever	n = 153	n = 131	n = 145	n = 74	n = 430	n = 66	n = 518
Antibiotic treatment	17.6	24.4	22.1	40.5	25.1	18.2	23.7
Supportive treatment	30.7	29.0	35.9	35.1	33.5	27.3	32.6
Incidence	41.2	42.7	42.8	35.1	43.7	34.8	41.9
Retained placenta (held cleaning)	n = 149	n = 133	n = 146	n = 73	n = 430	n = 65	n = 516
Antibiotic treatment	48.3	48.1	55.5	46.6	49.5	55.4	50.0
Supportive treatment	21.5	18.8	22.6	23.3	21.4	23.1	21.3
Incidence	49.7	49.6	43.8	32.9	47.9	43.1	45.9
Metritis	n = 148	n = 130	n = 141	n = 72	n = 422	n = 64	n = 505
Antibiotic treatment	39.2	39.2	39.0	40.3	39.1	45.3	39.4
Supportive treatment	14.9	13.8	13.5	13.9	13.0	17.2	13.9
Incidence	41.9	30.8	31.2	19.4	35.5	28.1	33.7
Displaced abomasum	n = 152	n = 133	n = 145	n = 74	n = 431	n = 66	n = 519
Antibiotic treatment	58.6	53.4	53.1	55.4	55.2	57.6	54.9
Supportive treatment	9.9	7.5	12.4	10.8	10.0	10.6	10.0
Incidence	36.8	33.8	35.2	31.1	36.2	34.8	35.1
Grass tetany	n = 148	n = 131	n = 145	n = 71	n = 423	n = 65	n = 509
Antibiotic treatment	12.2	14.5	17.2	21.1	15.4	15.4	15.5
Supportive treatment	19.6	21.4	20.0	14.1	20.6	15.4	19.6
Incidence	31.8	34.4	28.3	21.1	32.2	21.5	30.3
Ketosis	n = 150	n = 124	n = 134	n = 73	n = 414	n = 64	n = 498
Antibiotic treatment	22.7	22.6	22.4	31.5	22.9	26.6	23.5
Supportive treatment	18.7	15.3	16.4	13.7	15.5	18.8	16.3
Incidence	26.7	25.0	27.6	24.7	27.8	20.3	26.5

Open in a new tab

Table 3. Herd size odds ratios and 95% CI for responses to questions from a transition period survey in Ireland.

Survey question and answer^a	Class contrast (Herd size/calving pattern)^a	Odds ratio (95% CI)^b	P-value^c
Management strategy
Management in >1 group	Small vs. Large	0.22 (0.10, 0.50)	<0.001
	Average vs. Large	0.73 (0.40, 1.33)	0.537
	Above average vs. Large	0.64 (0.40, 1.03)	0.249
Management in >1 group	Split- vs. spring-calving	0.51 (0.30, 0.86)	0.011
Provide feed sources except silage	Split- vs. spring-calving	2.48 (1.46, 4.24)	<0.001
Once-a-day milking after calving	Split- vs. spring-calving	0.16 (0.07, 0.38)	<0.001
Cows indoors for a period after calving	Split- vs. spring-calving	0.34 (0.20, 0.57)	<0.001
Disease treatment incidence
Milk fever	Split- vs. spring-calving	1.78 (1.02, 3.12)	0.042
Record type
Metritis incidence	Small vs. Large	0.35 (0.14, 0.83)	0.010
	Average vs. Large	0.63 (0.34, 1.17)	0.223
	Above average vs. Large	0.63 (0.33, 1.20)	0.256
Antibiotic usage for milk fever	Small vs. Large	3.20 (1.42, 7.26)	<0.001
	Average vs. Large	1.30 (0.61, 2.74)	0.808
	Above average vs. Large	1.48 (0.69, 3.13)	0.546

Open in a new tab

^aHerds were categorized by herd size (large: >150 cows, above average: 100–150 cows, average: 60–100 cows, or small: <60 cows) based on the Irish national dairy herd average size (93 cows; [14]), and by calving pattern (spring-calving: cows calving in spring, or split-calving: cows calving in spring and autumn).

^bContrast analysed as "yes" vs. "no" except for milk fever reported treatment incidence (≤3% or >3%).

^cValues were adjusted using the Tukey-Kramer adjustment for multiple comparisons in the herd size model.

Farmers frequently reported keeping records of antibiotic treatments for displaced abomasum and/or digestive problems (54.9%; 285/519), retained placenta (held cleaning; 50.0% [258/516]), and metritis (39.4% [199/505]; Table 2). Additionally, some farmers, reported keeping records of antibiotic treatments for metabolic conditions (i.e. milk fever [23.7%; 123/518], ketosis [23.5%; 117/498] and grass tetany [15.5%; 79/509]; Table 2). The odds of farmers from small herds reporting keeping records of antibiotic treatments for milk fever were over 3 times those of farmers from large herds (OR [95% CI] = 3.2 [1.42–7.26]; P < 0.001), while no evidence of differing odds between farmers from average and above average compared to those of farmers from large herds was observed (Table 3).

Dry cow management

Reported management strategies by herd size and calving pattern is presented in S5 Table. Most commonly implemented management strategies for dry cows were body condition monitoring (73.4%; 365/497) and Mg and/or dry cow mineral supplementation in diet (61.2% [304/497]; Fig 3). The least reported management strategies were feeding a low K diet (20.3%; 101/497) or an acidifying diet (dietary cation-anion difference [DCAD]; 6.2% [31/497]; Fig 3). Some differences between reportedly implemented management strategies by herd size and calving pattern were observed (Table 3; Fig 3). Managing dry cows in more than one group (e.g. separate groups for fat and thin cows) was less frequently reported by farmers from small than large herds (OR [95% CI] = 0.22 [0.10–0.50]; P < 0.001) and by farmers from split- than spring-calving herds (OR [95% CI] = 0.51 [0.30–0.86]; P = 0.011; Table 3). The odds of farmers from split-calving herds reporting the provision of feeds other than silage to dry cows were 2.5 times those of farmers from spring-calving herds (OR [95% CI] = 2.48 [1.46–4.24]; P < 0.001; Table 3).

Fig 3 — Reported dry cow management strategies implemented, by herd size (A; large [>150 cows; n = 148], above average [100–150 cows; n = 129], average [60–100 cows; n = 142] and small [<60 cows; n = 72]) and herd calving pattern (B; spring-calving [n = 428] and split-calving [n = 67]) for respondents to a transition period survey in Ireland.

Fresh cow management

Reported management strategies by herd size and calving pattern is presented in S6 Table. The most commonly implemented fresh cow management strategy in relation to transition cow disease prevention was Ca supplementation at calving (60.6% [314/487]; Fig 4); of these, 82.2% (258/314) reported supplementing only “high-risk” cows and 12.1% (38/314) reported supplementing all cows (18 respondents chose both options). Some differences in implemented management strategies by herd size and calving pattern were observed (Table 3; Fig 4). Milking cows once-a-day for a period after calving was less frequently reported by farmers from split- calving than from spring-calving herds (OR [95% CI] = 0.16 [0.07–0.38]; P < 0.001). Last, keeping freshly calved cows indoors for a period after calving (the overall most frequently reported management strategy; 68.0% [331/487]) was less frequently reported by farmers from split- than spring-calving herds (OR [95% CI] = 0.34 [0.20–0.57]; P < 0.001).

Fig 4 — Reported fresh cow management strategies implemented, by herd size (A: large [>150 cows; n = 148], above average [100–150 cows; n = 121], average [60–100 cows; n = 136] and small [<60 cows; n = 67]) and herd calving pattern (B: spring-calving [n = 416] and split-calving [n = 67]) for respondents to a transition period survey in Ireland.

Discussion

A final total of 525 responses were suitable for data analysis, this represents 3.4% of Irish dairy herds (total of 15,319 dairy herds in 2022; [16]). Overall, respondents to this survey had larger herds and above average performance when compared to national averages; respondents mean herd size was 45% higher than the mean dairy herd size in the Republic of Ireland which is 93 cows [9], respondents mean 305-day milk yield and calving interval were respectively 20% higher and 3% lower than the 2022 national means (5,716 L/cow [11] and 388 days [ICBF HerdPlus users] [11]). The apparent ‘above average’ profile of the respondents’ herds is not surprising as this survey was distributed among Teagasc Technical Dairy Advisory clients which tend to operate at a higher standard of technical and financial performance than the overall dairy farmer population in Ireland [13]. It has to be noted that farmers chose to fill in the survey, thus further potential bias exists in the sample population as farmers interested in, or who are experiencing some issues with transition cow health and management may have been more likely to answer this survey. Recognising that the definition for the transition period provided in this survey (i.e. “late dry [late pregnancy if primiparous] to early lactation period”) along with some other phrases used throughout the survey (e.g. “freshly calved”, “early calvers”), are subjective, respondents may have perceived the timelines in which the questions were asking about differently which should be considered when interpreting results.

Respondents mostly had spring-calving herds which are most commonly seen in Ireland given the seasonal grass growth (92% of dairy herds; [14]) and the majority of respondents were located in county Cork (36.0% [147/408]; Fig 1), which is the county with the highest number of dairy cows in Ireland [15]. Regarding the reported disease levels, a herd alarm milk fever incidence threshold of >3% (within 14 days post-calving) was described by Lean and DeGaris [12] in an Australian technical review using data from grazing and confined herds; based on this threshold, 23.0% of respondents to our survey should be seeking help in regards to milk fever prevention. The provided threshold for retained placenta in this same review (>12 hours after calving; >6%) suggests that 2.5% of respondents to our survey should be seeking help for this condition if their definition of retained placenta aligned with the one used in the review, however, no definition of retained placenta was provided in the survey and respondents may have assumed varying definitions. Subclinical hypocalcaemia is a recurrent topic of research worldwide as reviewed by Couto Serrenho et al. [16] suggesting that transfer (or uptake) of scientific outputs to Irish dairy farmers may be limited (21% reported not knowing if subclinical hypocalcaemia was a problem in their herd).

Given the low number of farmers reporting to keep disease records, the creation and promotion of strategies to improve record-keeping on farms should be an area of focus for outreach activities. Disease incidence and treatment record-keeping is paramount in identifying patterns of disease and in aiding management of a disease at herd-level [17]. Our results also suggest that inappropriate antibiotic treatment decisions for metabolic disease treatment may be made at the farm-level. In the context of confined cows where extra-label use of antibiotics in the peripartum has been described, training the farmworkers involved in administering treatments to sick cows has proved successful at increasing their knowledge on transition cow disease diagnosis and treatment, without succeeding at decreasing overall antimicrobial use on farm [18, 19].

In terms of dry cow management strategies, the importance of optimizing body condition at calving for subsequent health and reproductive performance and Mg supplementation to reduce the risk of milk fever in grazing systems has been emphasized for decades, thus, it is not surprising that the message has reached Irish dairy farmers and these are commonly reported dry cow management strategies [20–22]. In agreement with our findings, an Irish survey by Cummins et al. [15] reported that most of the respondents to their survey (n = 262) set a target calving BCS and fed dry cow minerals. Managing cows in >1 group during the dry period was one of the most commonly reported management strategies for this period, grouping cows by BCS is recommended for optimal BCS management during the dry period and BCS monitoring was the most commonly reported strategy in this study, however, we did not enquire about the management associated with the grouping strategy.

Low K diets are recommended for transition cows given K’s contribution to a positive DCAD ultimately interfering with calcium metabolism and impairing dietary Mg absorption. Negative DCAD diets have solidly proven successful for milk fever prevention in confined cows [23, 24]. The high K concentration and DCAD in pasture have been described as limiting factors for the implementation of these strategies in grazing systems [25]. Research in grazing cows reports no association between positive DCAD (350 to 535 mEq/kg DM) and high K concentration (3.3 to 4.2% of DM) in pasture and plasma Ca concentration at calving, suggesting that these potential determinants of milk fever risk may not be as important in grazing dairy systems as they are in confined systems [26]. Nevertheless, K concentrations in Irish grass silage may not be as high as those reported from pasture in New Zealand studies (mean [range] = 2.4% [0.6 to 5.6%] of DM; n = 1,636 samples; [27]); and thus opting for a low K grass silage or achieving a lower DCAD through the addition of anionic salts may be management strategies more suitable for dry cow feeding in the Irish dairy production system than in other grazing systems. Therefore, further research is needed to understand the limited uptake and to identify the barriers for the adoption and implementation of these research-supported strategies for milk fever prevention by Irish dairy farmers.

The most reported fresh cow strategy was keeping cows indoors for a period postpartum, a practice more commonly implemented in spring-calving dairy herds. This strategy is most likely implemented due to excessive soil moisture during the first months of the spring calving season (January and February; [28]) rather than by a transition cow health improvement desire. Split-calving herds use a lower amount of grazed grass in their cows diet potentially explaining the lower implementation among these farmers [29]. Calcium supplementation at calving was the next most commonly reported strategy that could be associated with a transition cow health improvement desire; this practice is regarded as a prophylactic strategy for hypocalcaemia, effective at temporarily increasing blood Ca concentration and leading to positive performance effects on subpopulations of animals [30, 31]. Within this survey question, answers of supplementing “high-risk cows” and supplementing “all cows” at calving were combined; we did not ask farmers to outline their definition of a “high-risk” cow or their supplementation protocol, both of which are paramount in reaping the benefits of this management strategy according to research conducted in confined cows. To the best of our knowledge, only two studies by the same authors have evaluated Ca supplementation at calving in commercial Irish dairy farms [30, 32]; these studies assessed the safety and efficacy of a calcium and anti-oxidant bolus and focussed on the metabolic status and milk production of the cow post supplementation.Further research evaluating Ca supplementation strategies in the Irish dairy production context is warranted to optimise this commonly implemented strategy. Once-a-day milking was the third most popularly reported fresh period management strategy, this practice enables labour savings [33], and may reduce metabolite imbalances in early lactation and also reduce days to conception after calving [34–36]; nevertheless our study did not enquire about the reasons behind the reported management strategies.

Conclusions

Results from the present study suggest that milk fever is a transition cow health concern in Irish dairy farms. Optimization of commonly implemented dry cow (Mg and/or dry cow mineral supplementation) and fresh cow (Ca supplementation at calving) management strategies, as well as enhanced uptake of dry cow management strategies proven successful under other production systems (low K and negative DCAD diet) may help reduce milk fever’s burden on Irish dairy farms. Further research should identify the factors limiting the effectiveness of implemented management strategies and the end user adoption of successful management strategies for milk fever prevention. Additionally, dissemination activities targeting farmers from all herd sizes would be beneficial to increase awareness of peripartum metabolic diseases and their recommended treatment, as well as to promote disease incidence and treatment record keeping.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Transition cow health and management questions sent in a survey via text message to 3 899 Teagasc (Agriculture and Food Development Authority in the Republic of Ireland) dairy advisory clients in October 2022.

The survey was made using Survey Monkey (SurveyMonkey Inc., Palo Alto, CA) but has been presented here in table format.

(DOCX)

pone.0314987.s001.docx^{(15.9KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Dairy cow herd descriptions for survey respondents with an active ICBF (Irish Cattle Breeding Federation) account by herd size and calving pattern.

(DOCX)

pone.0314987.s002.docx^{(13.6KB, docx)}

S3 Table. Reported highest observed disease incidence by cow parity, stage of lactation and stage of calving season presented by herd size and calving pattern (% of respondents to a transition period survey in Ireland).

^aHerds were categorized by herd size (large: >150 cows, above average: 100–150 cows, average: 60–100 cows, or small: <60 cows) using the Irish national dairy herd average as reference (93 cows; [9]), and by calving pattern (spring-calving: cows calving in spring, or split-calving: cows calving in spring and autumn). ^bStages of lactation: Fresh calver: First 3 weeks after calving, early lactation: from week 3 to end of 3^rd month of lactation, mid lactation: from start of 4^th month to end of 7^th month of lactation, late lactation: from start of 8^th month of lactation to dry-off, far-off dry: from dry-off to close-up, close-up dry: last 3 weeks of pregnancy.

(DOCX)

pone.0314987.s003.docx^{(14.3KB, docx)}

S4 Table. Reported perception of dairy cow diseases by herd size and calving pattern.

Perception was based on treatments, mortality, culling and herd performance (% of respondents to a transition period survey in Ireland). ^aHerds were categorized by herd size (large: >150 cows, above average: 100–150 cows, average: 60–100 cows, or small: <60 cows) using the Irish national dairy herd average as reference (93 cows; [9]), and by calving pattern (spring-calving: cows calving in spring, or split-calving: cows calving in spring and autumn). ^bPerception definitions: Significant problem (regularly treating severe cases with some cows lost/culled), routine problem (regularly treating cows to control issues), occasional cases (but no major effect on herd performance).

(DOCX)

pone.0314987.s004.docx^{(19.9KB, docx)}

S5 Table. Reported dry cow management strategies by herd size and calving pattern (% of respondents to a transition period survey in Ireland).

(DOCX)

pone.0314987.s005.docx^{(13.4KB, docx)}

S6 Table. Reported fresh cow management strategies by herd size and calving pattern (% of respondents to a transition period survey in Ireland).

(DOCX)

pone.0314987.s006.docx^{(13.2KB, docx)}

Acknowledgments

The authors are especially thankful to the farmers who responded to this survey. And to J. Mason (Teagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Ireland) for her work compiling herd-level information. Financial support from the Irish Dairy Levy (Dairy Research Ireland, Dublin, Ireland) and Teagasc Walsh scholarship programme is greatly acknowledged.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Survey response details are confidential as our survey was not anonymous (Lines 128-129), and permission was only sought form the respondents for the purpose of this study and contact for other specific study.

Funding Statement

Funding for this project was provided by Teagasc (RMIS 1765) and awarded to AV, project coordinator and principal investigator of the above project. Please replace "(RMIS 1765)" with "(Project Number 1765).

References

1.Bauman DE, Bruce Currie W. Partitioning of Nutrients During Pregnancy and Lactation: A Review of Mechanisms Involving Homeostasis and Homeorhesis. J Dairy Sci. 1980;63: 1514–1529. doi: 10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(80)83111-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Mills KE, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk MAG. Identifying barriers to successful dairy cow transition management. J Dairy Sci. 2020;103: 1749–1758. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-16231 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Redfern EA, Sinclair LA, Robinson PA. Why isn’t the transition period getting the attention it deserves? Farm advisors’ opinions and experiences of managing dairy cow health in the transition period. Prev Vet Med. 2021;194: 105424. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105424 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Roche J. Transition Management in Grazing Systems: Pragmatism Before Precision. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice. 2023;39: 325–336. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2023.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.O’Brien D, Moran B, Shalloo L. A national methodology to quantify the diet of grazing dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2018;101: 8595–8604. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13604 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.United States Department of Agriculture National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS). Dairy cattle management practices in the United States. 2014.; Available from: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/dairy14_dr_parti_1.pdf
7.Fujiwara M, Haskell MJ, Macrae AI, Rutherford KMD. Survey of dry cow management on UK commercial dairy farms. Vet Rec. 2018;183: 297. doi: 10.1136/vr.104755 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Cummins C, Berry DP, Sayers R, Lorenz I, Kennedy E. Questionnaire identifying management practices surrounding calving on spring-calving dairy farms and their associations with herd size and herd expansion. Animal. 2016;10: 868–877. doi: 10.1017/S1751731116000124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Dillon E, Donnellan T, Moran B, Lennon J. Teagasc National Farm Survey 2022 Preliminary Results. 2023; Available from: https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2023/NFS_prelim_results_2022.pdf [Google Scholar]
10.Griffin M, Martino RJ, LoSchiavo C, Comer-Carruthers C, Krause KD, Stults CB, et al. Ensuring survey research data integrity in the era of internet bots. Qual Quant. 2022;56: 2841–2852. doi: 10.1007/s11135-021-01252-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.ICBF. HerdPlus Dairy Calving Statistics 2022. 2022 [cited 13 May 2024]. Available from: https://www.icbf.com/herdplus-dairy-calving-statistics-2022/
12.Lean I, DeGaris P. Transition cow management a technical review for nutritional professionals, veterinarians and farm advisers. 2^nd ed. Dairy Australia; 2021. [Google Scholar]
13.Bogue P. Impact of participation in Teagasc dairy discussion groups. 2013. Jan [cited 01 March 2024]. In: Teagasc; [Internet]. Available from: https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2013/Discussion_Group_Report_Web_Jan2013.pdf [Google Scholar]
14.National Milk Agency. National Milk Agency Annual Report & Accounts 2022. 2023 [cited 01 March 2023]. In: National Milk Agency [Internet]. Available from: https://nationalmilkagency.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/NMA-Annual-Report-2022.pdf
15.Central Statistics Office. Dairy Farming. 2021 [cited 2 Nov 2023]. In: CSO [Internet]. Available from: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-syi/statisticalyearbookofireland2021part3/agri/dairyfarming/
16.Couto Serrenho R, DeVries TJ, Duffield TF, LeBlanc SJ. Graduate Student Literature Review: What do we know about the effects of clinical and subclinical hypocalcemia on health and performance of dairy cows? J Dairy Sci. 2021;104: 6304–6326. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-19371 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Rhoda DA, Pantoja JCF. Using mastitis records and somatic cell count data. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice. 2012;28: 347–361. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2012.03.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Silva-del-Río N, Valldecabres A, Espadamala A, García-Muñoz A, Pallares P, Lago A, et al. Treatment practices after calving-related events on 45 dairy farms in California. J Dairy Sci. 2021;104: 12164–12172. doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-20593 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Garzon A, Portillo R, Habing G, Silva-del-Rio N, Karle BM, Pereira R V. Antimicrobial stewardship on the dairy: Evaluating an on-farm framework for training farmworkers. J Dairy Sci. 2023;106: 4171–4183. doi: 10.3168/jds.2022-22560 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Roche JR, Macdonald KA, Burke CR, Lee JM, Berry DP. Associations among body condition score, body weight, and reproductive performance in seasonal-calving dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2007;90: 376–391. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)72639-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Roche JR, Macdonald KA, Schütz KE, Matthews LR, Verkerk GA, Meier S, et al. Calving body condition score affects indicators of health in grazing dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2013;96: 5811–5825. doi: 10.3168/jds.2013-6600 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Roche JR, Berry DP. Periparturient climatic, animal, and management factors influencing the incidence of milk fever in grazing systems. J Dairy Sci. 2006;89: 2775–2783. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72354-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 8^th rev. ed. 2021. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]
24.Block E. Manipulating Dietary Anions and Cations for Prepartum Dairy Cows to Reduce Incidence of Milk Fever1. J Dairy Sci. 1984;67: 2939–2948. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(84)81657-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Roche Dalley, Moate Grainger, O’Mara H Rath. Variations in the dietary cation–anion difference and the acid–base balance of dairy cows on a pasture-based diet in south-eastern Australia. Grass Forage Sci. 2000;55: 26–36. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2494.2000.00192.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
26.Roche JR, Morton J, Kolver ES. Sulfur and Chlorine Play a Non-Acid Base Role in Periparturient Calcium Homeostasis. J Dairy Sci. 2002;85: 3444–3453. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74432-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Rogers P, Murphy W. Levels of dry matter, major elements (calcium, magnesium, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sodium and sulphur) and trace elements (cobalt, copper, iodine, manganese, molybdenum, selenium and zinc) in Irish grass, silage and hay. 2000. [cited 27 Feb 2024]. Available from: http://homepage.tinet.ie/~progers/0forage.htm [Google Scholar]
28.Schulte RPO, Diamond J, Finkele K, Holden NM, Brereton AJ. Predicting the soil moisture conditions of Irish grasslands. Irish J Agric Food Res. 2005;44: 95–110. [Google Scholar]
29.Geary U, Lopez-Villalobos N, Garrick DJ, Shalloo L. Spring calving versus split calving: effects on farm, processor and industry profitability for the Irish dairy industry. J Agric Sci. 2013;152: 448–463. doi: 10.1017/S0021859613000397 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
30.Lawlor J, Fahey A, Neville E, Stack A, Mulligan F. On-farm Safety and Efficacy Trial of Cow Start Calcium Bolus. Anim Vet Sci. 2019;7: 121. doi: 10.11648/j.avs.20190706.11 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
31.Roberts K, Bennison J, McDougall S. Effect of treatment with oral Ca boluses following calving on concentrations of Ca in serum in pasture-based dairy cows. N Z Vet J. 2019;67: 20–26. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2018.1520654 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Lawlor J, Fahey A, Neville E, Stack A, Mulligan F. Effect of Cow Start Calcium Bolus on Metabolic Status and Milk Production in Early Lactation. Anim Vet Sci. 2020;8: 124. doi: 10.11648/j.avs.20200806.12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
33.Murphy JP, O’Donovan M, McCarthy K, Delaby L, Sugrue K, Galvin N, et al. A three-year comparison of once-a-day and twice-a-day milking in seasonal-calving pasture-based systems. J Dairy Sci. 2023;106: 8910–8925. doi: 10.3168/jds.2023-23379 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Patton J, Kenny DA, Mee JF, O’Mara FP, Wathes DC, Cook M, et al. Effect of milking frequency and diet on milk production, energy balance, and reproduction in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2006;89: 1478–1487. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72215-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Clark DA, Phyn CVC, Tong MJ, Collis SJ, Dalley DE. A Systems Comparison of Once- Versus Twice-Daily Milking of Pastured Dairy Cows. J Dairy Sci. 2006;89: 1854–1862. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72254-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.McNamara S, Murphy JJ, O’Mara FP, Rath M, Mee JF. Effect of milking frequency in early lactation on energy metabolism, milk production and reproductive performance of dairy cows. Livest Sci. 2008;117: 70–78. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2007.11.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314987.r001

Decision Letter 0

Angel Abuelo

27 Sep 2024

PONE-D-24-31981Transition cow health and management in pasture-based dairy herds: a farmers’ surveyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Valldecabres,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. As you can see below, the reviewers showed contrasting opinions about the merit of the manuscript. In light of the split recommendations, I invite you to carefully address all the reviewers' comments. Please pay careful attention to the criticism from reviewer #3. They raise valid points that must be considered when revising the manuscript. Also, this invitation to revise the manuscript is no guarantee for the manuscript's acceptance but rather an opportunity to revise and improve the manuscript to overcome the shortcomings identified.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 11 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Angel Abuelo, DVM, MRes, MSc, PhD, DABVP (Dairy), DECBHM

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have referenced (Reardon et al., unpublished) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style

3. We note that [Figure 1] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for your paper - I have minor comments on attached annotated PDF. I think you need to get all co-authors to read through and check for grammatical errors as although I have pointed some out there are more

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well presented and would be of great interest to producers in Ireland. I have a few comments below.

I could not find a data availability statement. Please include per PLOS ONE requirements.

Line 200-205: It is unclear as to what the different categories are when only highlighting the category with the highest percentage. I suggest moving ln 206-207 to the start of this paragraph so the reader can reference that table as they progress through the paragraph. Likewise, moving ln. 211-212 prior to Line 208 (Overall most farmers…). I recommend this change throughout the manuscript.

Line 330: Do farmers not know what subclininical hypocalcemia is or do they not know if it is a problem since subclinical hypocalcemia does not have clinical signs, making it difficult to diagnose? In addition, how were the questions for Table S4 posed in the survey? If a farm does not record a disorder/monitor it, then they may respond with “I don’t know” versus one of the other options. Therefore, could there have been misinterpretation with the questions/options such that “I don’t know” was not interpreted as them not knowing what the disorder was? These comments are also applicable to subclinical ketosis - though subclinical ketosis is easier to monitor on farm, if the farm regularly monitors BHB. Blood calcium analysis is typically more limited and I would say farmers likely do not routinely monitor blood Ca to determine if the cow has subclinical hypocalcemia.

I suggest including the farm location (i.e. Ireland) and how this data was obtained (i.e. a survey) in your table and figure captions.

Reviewer #3: Transition cow management in pasture-based cows: a farmer survey.

The authors undertake a qualitative survey of farmer perceptions towards the importance of the transition period to health and productivity. I’m a strong supporter of consulting end users on their needs/opportunities and of proactively using data to develop hypotheses to test. So, the authors deserve credit for their initiative and endeavors. The authors conclude that, because of their survey results, more research is needed on milk fever/hypocalcemia, in particular, retained placenta, BCS monitoring, peripartum housing facilities, and early lactation calcium supplementation. This is despite the century of research that has already been undertaken in these topic areas. As someone who has worked extensively in this area for a long time, I do not agree with these conclusions and the authors offer no basis for the conclusion other than these diseases/poor metabolic adaptations are regarded as important by Irish dairy farmers. I remain to be convinced that this work reflects the ‘Irish situation’. Response rate is low (although an appreciable number of farmers) and very likely to be biased to farmers who have trouble with peripartum metabolic disease. The manuscript is very long, with very few results of note extensively discussed in the form of a type of literature review to support the authors’ position.

The Discussion subsections are long – excessively so - more akin to a literature review than the discussion of your results. A combined ‘Results and Discussion’ section, would help address this, with some discipline to shorter passages. The literature is cited relies too heavily on reviews/summary works and book chapters – the authors need to look at the original experiments published.

The literature cited is primarily from housed/mixed ration systems and ignores a large body of pasture-based (where cows are fed pasture through the transition period) research. To be fair, the authors do acknowledge some pasture-based work by Roche and colleagues in NZ. But, here they mainly cite the reviews and book chapters (some of which are behind paywalls, unfortunately), and not the large body of literature amassed over the last 20-30 years by this same team led by Roche, much of which provides some answers to many of the questions being raised by these Irish farmers. Instead, the majority of the discussion supporting the authors’ assertions comes from TMR systems.

In conclusion, in my opinion, it is important to survey farmers as you’ve done. However, this dataset is limited in its usefulness. -I do not agree that your results support further research in the areas you’ve highlighted. They might support greater advisory effort in these areas, but that is a very different conclusion and you would have to review the advisory material and how it is delivered to determine if this is true and the best solutions. -I believe the contents of the manuscript, if shortened to focus on the most important findings, would be an appropriate conference topic, perhaps, or if diligence to brevity in scientific writing could be pursued, perhaps it could be acceptable as a Brief Communication if this journal accepted this journal.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-31981_reviewer.pdf

pone.0314987.s007.pdf^{(2.7MB, pdf)}

PLoS One. 2024 Dec 17;19(12):e0314987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314987.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

11 Nov 2024

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their time and input to improve our manuscript; below we provide specific answers to each comment along with captions from the text to facilitate the review process. Changes to the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer #1

Abstract

1. Most pasture-based systems use housing - grass in summer, housing in winter. All pasture all the time systems are the unusual ones.

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment. We tried to differentiate Ireland’s from New Zealand’s production as most of the research in transition pasture-based cows comes from that region. We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment and have edited accordingly (Removed the phrase “Compared to other grazing systems,” and now the sentence reads “During the dry period, cows are housed and offered predominantly grass silage, providing unique transition cow management opportunities.” [Lines 25-26]).

2. % of what - please make clear and report denominators. how can you have three 'highest' disease incidence periods

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment. Denominators are now reported throughout the abstract. These numbers correspond to answers to three different questions: Q1, Q2 and Q3 (see Table S1). We have changed the phrasing (lines 33 – 35: “Disease incidence was reportedly highest in cows within their first 3 weeks postpartum (58%; 299/519), in cows calving at the end of the block calving season (48%; 245/510) and in multiparous cows (52%; 266/513).”)

3. Here and elsewhere - it's not 'reported to treat' it's 'reported treating' or similar

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment. The phrasing of relevant sentences has been changed accordingly throughout the manuscript.

4. What does this group mean - aren't study herds all spring calving herds. If not make it clear they're not - and state proportions

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment. We have now included a brief description of study participants herds calving patterns at the beginning of the abstract for clarity (lines 31 – 33: “Results are presented for all respondents, by herd size and by the two most common calving systems (spring- [84.3%; 439/521] and split-calving [12.9%; 67/521]).”)

5. Reporting the provision of feeds - again it's not 'to'

AU: Accepted. Thank you again for this comment, it has now been changed accordingly throughout the manuscript.

6. Why is anybody using antibiotics to treat milk fever cases?

AU: Farmers reported to keep records of antibiotic treatments for milk fever, it implies that antibiotics were used to treat milk fever, but we did not ask specifically for it or their reasons for this practice. Perhaps something that could be confronted in future studies regarding responsible antibiotic usage.

7. I don't think this is a surprising finding but it's presented as such

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment. We have changed the phrasing of the conclusion part of the abstract to “In conclusion, responses to our survey suggest…” (line 44).

Introduction

8. Get the co-authors to check the English

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment. The English has been reviewed throughout the manuscript.

9. Actually much of the transition period is actually homeorhesis - see Bradford and Shwartz 2020 and Degaris and Lean 2008

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment, it was very helpful. Changes to reflect that that homeorhesis is challenged during the transition period have been made accordingly to this sentence and Bauman and Currie (1980) has now been referenced (lines 50 – 53: “This is not surprising given the range of physical (physiological, immunological and metabolic) and environmental changes which challenge cows’ homeostasis and homeorhesis, often turning into disease and ultimately impairing cows’ welfare and production performance [1].”).

10. Please rephrase as I had to read this multiple times to work out what it mean - perhaps start with Roche [8} interviewed ... and found ...

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment. The sentence has been rephrased and we noticed an error with the reference which has been changed (lines 59 – 62: “Redfern et al. [3] interviewed farm advisors and reported that advisors were not providing farmers with focussed advise due to time constraints and fear of responsibility, among others. This lack of focussed advice being given to farmers may also restrain the improvement on transition cow health and management.”).

11. In the abstract this was a bit vague but this is now more explicitly wrong - many systems use grazing and housing - Ireland's uniqueness is the combination ina system where grass (grazed or preserved is by far the most important feed)

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment. Changes have been made accordingly to highlight the proportion of grass in the dairy cows’ diet as the unique factor that Irish dairy production has over other pasture-based systems (lines 69 – 71: “Forage, mostly grazed pasture, makes up 95% of the Irish dairy cows’ diet [5], creating a need for bespoke transition cow management.”).

12. Definitely needs bespoke transition management but it is far from unique

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment. We have changed the phrasing of this sentence to lead the reader to understand the requirement for bespoke over “unique” management. Please see comment 11 above.

13. Doesn't Roche's AVS supplement paper - The incidence and control of hypocalcaemia in pasture-based systems. have Irish data

AU: The authors could not access the currently 21 years old paper mentioned which is published under a non-open access policy. While Roche may have published using Irish data, we refer to a lack of national-level data (i.e. lack of studies such as the NAHMS survey in the US or the recent work by Kerwin and colleagues in Cornell).

Materials and methods

14. this makes it sound like they became advisors

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment, this has now been changed to make it sound less like this (line 95: “Irish farmers voluntarily sign up to the advisory service…”)

15. clients

AU: Accepted. Thank you for noticing this, it has now been changed from members to clients (line 99).

16. what does late dry mean? Last 30 days? last 7 days? What do you think yur respondents thought it meant? Same applies to early lactation

AU: Late dry and early lactation were not defined at the beginning of this survey and this is now highlighted as a study limitation in the discussion (lines 318 – 323: “Recognising that the definition for the transition period provided in this survey (i.e. “late dry [late pregnancy if primiparous] to early lactation period”) along with some other phrases used throughout the survey (e.g. “freshly calved”, “early calvers”), are subjective, respondents may have perceived the timelines in which the questions were asking about differently which should be considered when interpreting results.”).

17. repetition - use longer version first

AU: Accepted.

18. what does this mean Is survey available as supplementary material

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment. An explanation has been added to this line (lines 116 – 117: “The second question asked farmers for their herd number for the purpose of data extraction from the ICBF database …”). We have clarified why these questions are not available in the supplementary material “Given their lack of association to the survey results, these two questions are not included in the survey available as supplementary material (S1 Table).” (Lines 118 – 120).

19. participating (partaking in is more commonly used for food/drink)

AU: Accepted (line 118).

20. early lactation is your term

AU: We acknowledge that the reviewer recommendation is accurate, terms could have been chosen better, however it was not noticed designing the survey or during the validation process. Since in the original survey, we referred to “freshly calved” cows, the authors consider it more accurate to maintain the original terminology in the report. This kind of limitation is discussed in lines 318 – 323.

21. repetition

AU: Accepted. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The repeated statement has now been deleted.

Results

22. equally affects surely otherwise the question is close to meaningless as

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment. This line has been changed to avoid confusion (line 210: “and that disease equally affects both, primiparous and multiparous cows”).

23. technically as the maternal placenta is always retained retained fetal membranes is a better term

AU: While we understand that retained fetal membrane would be a more biologically correct term here, “retained placenta (held cleaning)” was the term used in the survey questions. The phrase “(held cleaning) has now been added when referring to retained placenta throughout the manuscript to help clarify what is meant by this phrase. We consider it more accurate to maintain the consistency in terminology throughout the manuscript. In the discussion, the papers we reference for retained placenta herd alarm level also reference the condition as such.

24. Herds

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment, the table caption has been changed accordingly (Table 1).

25. vague term

AU: Accepted, the word “noticeable” has now been changed to “substantial” as the word substantial can be defined as something that is of considerable size, and this is what we are trying to communicate here (line 237).

26. same question as abstract - what does this mean

AU: Please see author response to comment 6 above.

27. I can see why you focus on OR where 95%CI exclude 1, but if you're going to claim results are similar then you need CI to show that you have sufficient data to exclude the difference being quite large. Table 3 shows you don't

AU: Accepted, thank you for this comment. We have rephrased the references to non-statistically significant odds ratio. “No evidence of differing odds for reporting keeping incidence records for other conditions among farmers from different herd sizes and calving patterns was observed.” lines 247 – 249 and “while no evidence of differing odds between farmers from average and above average compared to those of farmers from large herds was observed (Table 3).” lines 257 - 258.

Discussion

28. was that the definition your farmers used?

AU: No, this was not necessarily the definition farmers used for retained placenta as mentioned in lines 333 – 334 (“if their definition of retained placenta aligned with the one used in the review,”). However, to clarify that we did not provide farmers with a definition for retained placenta we have included the following at the end of this same sentence “however, no definition of retained placenta was provided in the survey and respondents may have assumed varying definitions.” lines 334 - 335.

29. 21

AU: Thank you for bringing this to our attention, however this reference has since been removed from the manuscript when addressing other reviewers’ comments.

30. I'm not sure you can make this conclusion. the way I read the question is do you keep records of antibiotics given to cows with milk fever rather than do you use antibiotics to treat milk fever. The question is about recording not use

AU: Thank you for this comment. In the question we specify “in association with the following conditions”. Thus, we expect the farmer to have reported keeping records in association with the condition (i.e. antibiotics for milk fever).

31. I think this is overstating it especially as Roche then says K is not unimportant

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment. This sentence has now been changed to more appropriately reflect what John Roche was saying in his paper (lines 367 – 368: “suggesting that these potential determinants of milk fever risk may not be as important in grazing dairy systems as they are in confined systems [26].”).

Reviewer #2

1. I could not find a data availability statement. Please include per PLOS ONE requirements.

AU: Accepted. Thank you for your comment. Survey response details are confidential as our survey was not anonymous (Lines 128-129), and permission was only sought form the respondents for the purpose of this study and contact for other specific study. All the relevant results are summarized among the manuscript and the supplemental material.

2. Line 200-205: It is unclear as to what the different categories are when only highlighting the category with the highest percentage. I suggest moving ln 206-207 to the start of this paragraph so the reader can reference that table as they progress through the paragraph. Likewise, moving ln. 211-212 prior to Line 208 (Overall most farmers…). I recommend this change throughout the manuscript.

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment and your suggestion on how to remedy the problem. Changes have been made accordingly throughout the manuscript.

3. Line 330: Do farmers not know what subclininical hypocalcemia is or do they not know if it is a problem since subclinical hypocalcemia does not have clinical signs, making it difficult to diagnose? In addition, how were the questions for Table S4 posed in the survey? If a farm does not record a disorder/monitor it, then they may respond with “I don’t know” versus one of the other options. Therefore, could there have been misinterpretation with the questions/options such that “I don’t know” was not interpreted as them not knowing what the disorder was? These comments are also applicable to subclinical ketosis - though subclinical ketosis is easier to monitor on farm, if the farm regularly monitors BHB. Blood calcium analysis is typically more limited and I would say farmers likely do not routinely monitor blood Ca to determine if the cow has subclinical hypocalcemia.

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment. The question relating to S4 Table can be seen in S1 Table question 4. We understand the potential misinterpretation that is outlined in this comment and have made two changes to the manuscript to help clarify that these respondents reported not knowing if the subclinical condition affects their herd rather than them reporting not knowing what it was (lines 256 – 241 – 242: “20.7% (107/517) of farmers reported not knowing if subclinical hypocalcaemia was a problem in their herd.” and lines 337 – 338: “…(21% reported not knowing if subclinical hypocalcaemia was a problem in their herd).”).

4. I suggest including the farm location (i.e. Ireland) and how this data was obtained (i.e. a survey) in your table and figure captions.

AU: Accepted. Thank you for this comment. The table and figure captions have been edited accordingly.

Reviewer #3

AU: Thank you for this comment and acknowledgement of our research endeavours. In our conclusion, which also refers to the reported implementation of management strategies, the required further research is framed within the understanding of the constraints towards the implementation of strategies proven successful in different production systems and those limiting the effectiveness of the management strategies already implemented in the system under study. Dairy production in Ireland offers management opportunities different to those in the context where most of the grazing transition cow research has been conducted (New Zealand). For instance, cows are housed during the dry period and fed a grass-silage based diet. According to data from our resear

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0314987.s008.docx^{(35.4KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314987.r003

Decision Letter 1

Angel Abuelo

19 Nov 2024

Transition cow health and management in pasture-based dairy herds: a farmers’ survey

PONE-D-24-31981R1

Dear Dr. Valldecabres,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Angel Abuelo, DVM, MRes, MSc, PhD, DABVP (Dairy), DECBHM

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Still some "reporting to"s - eg 339. Another check through may be useful to identify others not picked up

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314987.r004

Acceptance letter

Angel Abuelo

25 Nov 2024

PONE-D-24-31981R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Valldecabres,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Angel Abuelo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

The survey was made using Survey Monkey (SurveyMonkey Inc., Palo Alto, CA) but has been presented here in table format.

(DOCX)

pone.0314987.s001.docx^{(15.9KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Dairy cow herd descriptions for survey respondents with an active ICBF (Irish Cattle Breeding Federation) account by herd size and calving pattern.

(DOCX)

pone.0314987.s002.docx^{(13.6KB, docx)}

(DOCX)

pone.0314987.s003.docx^{(14.3KB, docx)}

S4 Table. Reported perception of dairy cow diseases by herd size and calving pattern.

(DOCX)

pone.0314987.s004.docx^{(19.9KB, docx)}

S5 Table. Reported dry cow management strategies by herd size and calving pattern (% of respondents to a transition period survey in Ireland).

(DOCX)

pone.0314987.s005.docx^{(13.4KB, docx)}

S6 Table. Reported fresh cow management strategies by herd size and calving pattern (% of respondents to a transition period survey in Ireland).

(DOCX)

pone.0314987.s006.docx^{(13.2KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-31981_reviewer.pdf

pone.0314987.s007.pdf^{(2.7MB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0314987.s008.docx^{(35.4KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

[pone.0314987.ref001] 1.Bauman DE, Bruce Currie W. Partitioning of Nutrients During Pregnancy and Lactation: A Review of Mechanisms Involving Homeostasis and Homeorhesis. J Dairy Sci. 1980;63: 1514–1529. doi: 10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(80)83111-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref002] 2.Mills KE, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk MAG. Identifying barriers to successful dairy cow transition management. J Dairy Sci. 2020;103: 1749–1758. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-16231 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref003] 3.Redfern EA, Sinclair LA, Robinson PA. Why isn’t the transition period getting the attention it deserves? Farm advisors’ opinions and experiences of managing dairy cow health in the transition period. Prev Vet Med. 2021;194: 105424. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105424 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref004] 4.Roche J. Transition Management in Grazing Systems: Pragmatism Before Precision. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice. 2023;39: 325–336. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2023.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref005] 5.O’Brien D, Moran B, Shalloo L. A national methodology to quantify the diet of grazing dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2018;101: 8595–8604. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13604 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref006] 6.United States Department of Agriculture National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS). Dairy cattle management practices in the United States. 2014.; Available from: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/dairy14_dr_parti_1.pdf

[pone.0314987.ref007] 7.Fujiwara M, Haskell MJ, Macrae AI, Rutherford KMD. Survey of dry cow management on UK commercial dairy farms. Vet Rec. 2018;183: 297. doi: 10.1136/vr.104755 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref008] 8.Cummins C, Berry DP, Sayers R, Lorenz I, Kennedy E. Questionnaire identifying management practices surrounding calving on spring-calving dairy farms and their associations with herd size and herd expansion. Animal. 2016;10: 868–877. doi: 10.1017/S1751731116000124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref009] 9.Dillon E, Donnellan T, Moran B, Lennon J. Teagasc National Farm Survey 2022 Preliminary Results. 2023; Available from: https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2023/NFS_prelim_results_2022.pdf [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref010] 10.Griffin M, Martino RJ, LoSchiavo C, Comer-Carruthers C, Krause KD, Stults CB, et al. Ensuring survey research data integrity in the era of internet bots. Qual Quant. 2022;56: 2841–2852. doi: 10.1007/s11135-021-01252-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref011] 11.ICBF. HerdPlus Dairy Calving Statistics 2022. 2022 [cited 13 May 2024]. Available from: https://www.icbf.com/herdplus-dairy-calving-statistics-2022/

[pone.0314987.ref012] 12.Lean I, DeGaris P. Transition cow management a technical review for nutritional professionals, veterinarians and farm advisers. 2^nd ed. Dairy Australia; 2021. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref013] 13.Bogue P. Impact of participation in Teagasc dairy discussion groups. 2013. Jan [cited 01 March 2024]. In: Teagasc; [Internet]. Available from: https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2013/Discussion_Group_Report_Web_Jan2013.pdf [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref014] 14.National Milk Agency. National Milk Agency Annual Report & Accounts 2022. 2023 [cited 01 March 2023]. In: National Milk Agency [Internet]. Available from: https://nationalmilkagency.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/NMA-Annual-Report-2022.pdf

[pone.0314987.ref015] 15.Central Statistics Office. Dairy Farming. 2021 [cited 2 Nov 2023]. In: CSO [Internet]. Available from: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-syi/statisticalyearbookofireland2021part3/agri/dairyfarming/

[pone.0314987.ref016] 16.Couto Serrenho R, DeVries TJ, Duffield TF, LeBlanc SJ. Graduate Student Literature Review: What do we know about the effects of clinical and subclinical hypocalcemia on health and performance of dairy cows? J Dairy Sci. 2021;104: 6304–6326. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-19371 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref017] 17.Rhoda DA, Pantoja JCF. Using mastitis records and somatic cell count data. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice. 2012;28: 347–361. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2012.03.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref018] 18.Silva-del-Río N, Valldecabres A, Espadamala A, García-Muñoz A, Pallares P, Lago A, et al. Treatment practices after calving-related events on 45 dairy farms in California. J Dairy Sci. 2021;104: 12164–12172. doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-20593 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref019] 19.Garzon A, Portillo R, Habing G, Silva-del-Rio N, Karle BM, Pereira R V. Antimicrobial stewardship on the dairy: Evaluating an on-farm framework for training farmworkers. J Dairy Sci. 2023;106: 4171–4183. doi: 10.3168/jds.2022-22560 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref020] 20.Roche JR, Macdonald KA, Burke CR, Lee JM, Berry DP. Associations among body condition score, body weight, and reproductive performance in seasonal-calving dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2007;90: 376–391. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)72639-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref021] 21.Roche JR, Macdonald KA, Schütz KE, Matthews LR, Verkerk GA, Meier S, et al. Calving body condition score affects indicators of health in grazing dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2013;96: 5811–5825. doi: 10.3168/jds.2013-6600 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref022] 22.Roche JR, Berry DP. Periparturient climatic, animal, and management factors influencing the incidence of milk fever in grazing systems. J Dairy Sci. 2006;89: 2775–2783. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72354-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref023] 23.National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 8^th rev. ed. 2021. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref024] 24.Block E. Manipulating Dietary Anions and Cations for Prepartum Dairy Cows to Reduce Incidence of Milk Fever1. J Dairy Sci. 1984;67: 2939–2948. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(84)81657-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref025] 25.Roche Dalley, Moate Grainger, O’Mara H Rath. Variations in the dietary cation–anion difference and the acid–base balance of dairy cows on a pasture-based diet in south-eastern Australia. Grass Forage Sci. 2000;55: 26–36. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2494.2000.00192.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref026] 26.Roche JR, Morton J, Kolver ES. Sulfur and Chlorine Play a Non-Acid Base Role in Periparturient Calcium Homeostasis. J Dairy Sci. 2002;85: 3444–3453. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74432-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref027] 27.Rogers P, Murphy W. Levels of dry matter, major elements (calcium, magnesium, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sodium and sulphur) and trace elements (cobalt, copper, iodine, manganese, molybdenum, selenium and zinc) in Irish grass, silage and hay. 2000. [cited 27 Feb 2024]. Available from: http://homepage.tinet.ie/~progers/0forage.htm [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref028] 28.Schulte RPO, Diamond J, Finkele K, Holden NM, Brereton AJ. Predicting the soil moisture conditions of Irish grasslands. Irish J Agric Food Res. 2005;44: 95–110. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref029] 29.Geary U, Lopez-Villalobos N, Garrick DJ, Shalloo L. Spring calving versus split calving: effects on farm, processor and industry profitability for the Irish dairy industry. J Agric Sci. 2013;152: 448–463. doi: 10.1017/S0021859613000397 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref030] 30.Lawlor J, Fahey A, Neville E, Stack A, Mulligan F. On-farm Safety and Efficacy Trial of Cow Start Calcium Bolus. Anim Vet Sci. 2019;7: 121. doi: 10.11648/j.avs.20190706.11 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref031] 31.Roberts K, Bennison J, McDougall S. Effect of treatment with oral Ca boluses following calving on concentrations of Ca in serum in pasture-based dairy cows. N Z Vet J. 2019;67: 20–26. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2018.1520654 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref032] 32.Lawlor J, Fahey A, Neville E, Stack A, Mulligan F. Effect of Cow Start Calcium Bolus on Metabolic Status and Milk Production in Early Lactation. Anim Vet Sci. 2020;8: 124. doi: 10.11648/j.avs.20200806.12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref033] 33.Murphy JP, O’Donovan M, McCarthy K, Delaby L, Sugrue K, Galvin N, et al. A three-year comparison of once-a-day and twice-a-day milking in seasonal-calving pasture-based systems. J Dairy Sci. 2023;106: 8910–8925. doi: 10.3168/jds.2023-23379 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref034] 34.Patton J, Kenny DA, Mee JF, O’Mara FP, Wathes DC, Cook M, et al. Effect of milking frequency and diet on milk production, energy balance, and reproduction in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2006;89: 1478–1487. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72215-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref035] 35.Clark DA, Phyn CVC, Tong MJ, Collis SJ, Dalley DE. A Systems Comparison of Once- Versus Twice-Daily Milking of Pastured Dairy Cows. J Dairy Sci. 2006;89: 1854–1862. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72254-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0314987.ref036] 36.McNamara S, Murphy JJ, O’Mara FP, Rath M, Mee JF. Effect of milking frequency in early lactation on energy metabolism, milk production and reproductive performance of dairy cows. Livest Sci. 2008;117: 70–78. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2007.11.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Transition cow health and management in pasture-based dairy herds: A farmers’ survey

Louise Horan

Joseph Patton

Conor G McAloon

Ángel García-Muñoz

Áine Regan

John F Mee

Ainhoa Valldecabres

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Study population

Survey design and distribution

Data processing and analysis

Results

Fig 1. Geographical distribution by county of survey respondents across the Republic of Ireland (n = 408 respondents with valid Eircodes).

Study population

Disease incidence

Fig 2.

Table 1. Reported proportion of respondents’ herds treated for health conditions on an “average” year (% of respondents to a transition period survey in Ireland).

Perceived disease importance

Disease records

Table 2. Reported dairy cow peripartum condition records kept (% of respondents to a transition period survey in Ireland).

Table 3. Herd size odds ratios and 95% CI for responses to questions from a transition period survey in Ireland.

Dry cow management

Fig 3.

Fresh cow management

Fig 4.

Discussion

Conclusions

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Angel Abuelo

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Angel Abuelo

Roles

Acceptance letter

Angel Abuelo

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases