Hubbry Logo
Digital dermatitisDigital dermatitisMain
Open search
Digital dermatitis
Community hub
Digital dermatitis
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Digital dermatitis
Digital dermatitis
Digital dermatitis
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Digital dermatitis is a disease that causes lameness in cattle. It was first discovered in Italy in 1974 by Cheli and Mortellaro. This disease is caused by a mixture of different bacteria. Anaerobic bacteria, including spirochetes of the genus Treponema, are found in the lesions associated with the infection. Digital dermatitis is different from foot rot in cattle and both conditions may occur concurrently.

Digital dermatitis primarily affects dairy cattle and has been known to lower the quantity of milk produced, but the quality of the milk is unaffected.

Evidence shows that risk factors favouring digital dermatitis outbreaks include: poor hygiene and high humidity; introduction of infected animals; no hoof care for heifers and dry cows; high levels of chronically infected animals; insufficient or inadequate hoof trimming; soft hooves and unbalanced nutrition.[1]

Presentation

[edit]

Digital dermatitis appears as lesions which initially looks like a raw, red, oval ulcer on the back of the heel. These lesions develop raised, hair-like projections or wart-like lesions, and some may extend up between the claws or appear on the front of the foot.[2]

Cause

[edit]

Digital dermatitis is a polymicrobial disease involving treponemes and other anaerobes.[3] Treponemes are the bacterium most commonly found in lesions. Their abundance increases as the lesion progresses. They account for 94% of bacterial sequences detected in chronic lesions.[4]

Diagnosis

[edit]

A scoring system[5] was developed to classify the different stages of digital dermatitis, the M-stages system, where "M" stands for Mortellaro. The different stages are described as: M0, healthy skin; M1, early stage, skin defect < 2 cm diameter; M2, acute active ulcerative lesion; M3, healing stage, lesion covered with scab-like material; M4, chronic stage, that may be dyskeratotic (mostly thickened epithelium) or proliferative or both.[citation needed]

Diagnosis is principally based on history and clinical signs. It is very rare that attempts are made to isolate the bacteria.[6]

Treatment

[edit]

Treatment of lesions of digital dermatitis is done by topical application of agents to the affected skin. The skin should be cleaned and kept dry prior to treatment. Topical oxytetracycline (OTC) is often referred as the most reliable treatment as cows treated with OTC have a good recovery rate. Bandaging the lesion is often undertaken but there is no evidence of any benefit and bandaging can provide the anaerobic environment which supports the spirochaetes. Systemic antibiotics are not needed.[6]

Control and prevention of digital dermatitis relies on prompt detection, isolation and treatment of affected cattle. Group hoof disinfection can be achieved via the passage of the cows through footbaths of antimicrobial solutions. Slurry build-up should be avoided since organic matter can impair the antimicrobial efficacy of the footbath solutions. Regular footbaths should be organised, using formalin, copper sulphate[6] or a thymol-based disinfectant.[7] While regular footbathing can help prevent hoof infections, occasional flare-up of active M2 lesions can happen.

Copper sulfate footbaths are one of the most common forms of protection and treatment for digital dermatitis thanks to its antimicrobial trait and its ability to harden hooves to prevent exposure to bacteria. Copper sulfate is more effective as a prevention method rather than a treatment for digital dermatitis.[8]

Synonyms

[edit]
  • Hairy heel warts
  • Strawberry foot rot
  • Mortellaro disease
  • Italian foot rot
  • Papillomatous digital dermatitis (caused by Treponema spirochetes)[9]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Digital dermatitis

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Digital dermatitis (DD), also known as hairy heel warts, is a polymicrobial infectious disease that primarily affects the skin of the bovine foot, causing painful ulcerative lesions typically on the heels and interdigital spaces of the hind feet in cattle. This condition leads to lameness, reduced mobility, and significant welfare concerns, making it one of the most common causes of infectious lameness in dairy and beef cattle worldwide. First described in Italian dairy herds in 1974, DD has since been recognized in various ruminants, including sheep, goats, and elk, though it predominantly impacts housed cattle in intensive production systems. The etiology of DD is multifactorial, involving a complex interplay of environmental, management, and microbial factors, with no single pathogen solely responsible. Key bacterial contributors include spirochetes of the genus Treponema (such as T. phagedenis-like, T. vincentii-like, and T. denticola-like phylotypes), which are consistently present in active lesions and dominate the microbial community, often comprising up to 50% of sequences in affected tissues. Other associated bacteria include Fusobacterium necrophorum, Porphyromonas levii, Dichelobacter nodosus, and Campylobacter spp., forming a polymicrobial biofilm that perpetuates inflammation and tissue damage through stages classified as M1 (early ulcerative) to M4 (chronic proliferative). Transmission occurs via contaminated environments, such as wet bedding or slurry, with poor hygiene and overcrowding exacerbating outbreaks. Epidemiologically, DD prevalence varies by region and herd management, with estimates of 20-30% at the cow level in European dairy herds and up to 25% in the United States and European Union overall. The disease imposes substantial economic burdens, including annual losses of approximately $190 million (as of 2006) to the U.S. dairy industry alone due to decreased milk yield (e.g., 0.91-5.5 kg/day per affected cow), impaired fertility, and treatment costs. Management strategies focus on prevention through improved housing, regular footbathing with agents like copper sulfate or zinc, and topical or systemic antibiotics (e.g., oxytetracycline), though recurrence is common and no effective vaccine exists. Ongoing research emphasizes genetic susceptibility and immunological responses to develop targeted interventions.

Historical and Epidemiological Context

History

Digital dermatitis, also known as Mortellaro's disease in parts of Europe, was first described in 1974 by Italian veterinarians R. Cheli and C. Mortellaro during outbreaks of lameness in dairy cattle herds in northern Italy, particularly in the Lombardy region. They characterized the condition as an infectious, erosive dermatitis affecting the skin at the coronary band and heel bulb, leading to painful lesions that impaired mobility. This initial recognition highlighted the disease's association with intensive housing systems, marking the beginning of scientific documentation on its clinical presentation. Following its identification in Italy, digital dermatitis rapidly spread across Europe in the 1980s, with early reports emerging in the Netherlands in 1980 and the United Kingdom by 1985. The condition was documented in additional countries, including Germany and France, often linked to expanding dairy operations and shared animal movements. In the United States, the first cases were reported in 1980 from New York dairy herds, though widespread recognition occurred during the 1990s as outbreaks increased in prevalence across multiple states. Research on digital dermatitis evolved significantly from the 1970s, when efforts focused on clinical identification and gross pathology, to the 1990s, when studies confirmed its bacterial etiology through microbiological investigations. Key advancements included the isolation and phylogenetic characterization of spirochete bacteria, particularly Treponema species, from lesion biopsies, establishing them as primary pathogens. By the 2000s, the disease was widely acknowledged as a major animal welfare issue due to its role in chronic lameness and pain in affected cattle.

Epidemiology and Economic Impact

Digital dermatitis (DD) is a widespread infectious disease primarily affecting dairy cattle, with herd-level prevalence reaching 70-90% in Europe and North America, where within-herd cow prevalence often ranges from 20-30%. The disease has become endemic in these regions' intensive dairy production systems, but it is emerging in beef cattle populations and has been reported in South America and Asia since the 2010s, with prevalence in North American feedlots varying from 4-61%. Risk factors differ markedly by production system; intensive dairy operations with housed or confined animals exhibit higher incidence due to factors like wet environments and overcrowding, compared to lower rates in extensive grazing systems where cattle have greater access to dry pastures. The economic burden of DD is substantial, with annual losses per affected cow estimated at $150-300, driven by direct treatment costs, reduced productivity, and higher culling. Affected cows experience a 5-10% drop in milk yield, equating to 0.5-1.5 kg less per day during lactation, alongside decreased feed intake and fertility. Lameness from DD contributes to increased culling risk. In the U.S. dairy industry, total annual losses from reduced milk production are estimated at approximately $190 million (as of 2006), with combined losses for the U.S. and EU estimated at $1.1 billion as of 2015 assuming a 25% prevalence rate. Recent trends indicate rising DD incidence, particularly linked to production intensification in global livestock systems, with post-2016 studies documenting increased cases in beef cattle and non-dairy ruminants. This upward trajectory exacerbates welfare concerns and economic pressures, underscoring the need for targeted surveillance in expanding intensive operations.

Clinical Manifestations

Signs and Symptoms

Digital dermatitis primarily manifests as a sudden onset of lameness in one or more limbs of affected cattle, ranging from mild to severe and often resulting in reluctance to walk or stand. This lameness is a key clinical feature, directly linked to the painful nature of the lesions and contributing significantly to reduced mobility. The lesions typically appear as initial raw, red ulcers located in the interdigital skin near the heel bulb, progressing to larger, moist, strawberry-like erosions characterized by a grayish exudate. These ulcerative areas are often circumscribed, measuring less than 2 cm in early stages, with red-to-gray coloration and white margins. Lesion progression aligns with standardized staging systems, such as the M-stage classification, where active stages (e.g., M1 and M2) exhibit these acute features before potentially healing or becoming chronic. Secondary effects include pronounced pain upon palpation, swelling around the coronary band, and potential spread of lesions to the dewclaws or pastern region. In chronic cases, lesions develop hyperkeratosis, presenting as thickened, warty growths that are typically non-painful. Affected cattle exhibit altered behavior, including reduced lying time in cases with bilateral active lesions—which disrupts normal rest patterns and impacts milk production and overall welfare. This behavioral shift reflects the discomfort associated with acute lesions, leading to increased standing time and decreased rumination.

Lesion Staging and Progression

The M-staging system, developed by Döpfer et al. in 1997, provides a standardized framework for classifying digital dermatitis (DD) lesions based on their morphological characteristics and severity, facilitating consistent assessment across clinical and research settings. This five-stage scale (M0 to M4) categorizes lesions from healthy tissue to chronic proliferative forms, emphasizing the dynamic nature of the disease where stages reflect both acute infectious activity and healing or chronicity. The system is widely adopted in veterinary practice for monitoring lesion evolution, particularly in dairy cattle, where it aids in evaluating treatment efficacy and herd-level prevalence. M0 Stage: This represents normal, healthy skin with no visible signs of DD, characterized by intact, pink interdigital skin free of lesions or inflammation. It indicates either the absence of prior infection or complete resolution following treatment or spontaneous healing. M1 Stage: Known as the early acute lesion, M1 appears as a small, focal, red-grey spot less than 2 cm in diameter, often located in the interdigital cleft or near the heel bulb. The lesion is moist and may cause mild discomfort, marking the initial infectious phase before ulceration develops. M2 Stage: This is the active ulcerative stage, featuring an open, bright red or red-grey lesion greater than or equal to 2 cm, with exposed granulation tissue that is highly painful and often emits a pungent odor. M2 lesions represent the peak of acute infection, commonly associated with lameness and bacterial proliferation at the site. M3 Stage: The healing or subacute chronic stage is identified by a painless lesion covered with a firm, dry scab (brown, gray, or green-blue, depending on prior treatment), indicating epithelial repair without active ulceration. Skin may show mild thickening as regeneration progresses. M4 Stage: Chronic proliferative lesions in this stage exhibit wart-like, non-painful overgrowths with thickened, dyskeratotic skin and hyperkeratotic projections resembling hair, serving as reservoirs for persistent infection despite lacking acute symptoms. These lesions are brown-gray and circumscribed, often resisting standard treatments. Without intervention, DD lesions exhibit variable natural progression, with M1 and M2 stages capable of spontaneous resolution to M0 in some cases or advancement to chronic M4 within weeks to months, driven by unchecked bacterial activity. Recurrence is frequent, with rates of 48% to 60% within 49 to 100 days post-resolution, particularly from M4 stages reactivating into acute forms. This cyclical pattern underscores the importance of early detection and repeated monitoring to interrupt progression.

Pathogenesis and Etiology

Causative Agents

Digital dermatitis is characterized by a polymicrobial etiology, with anaerobic spirochetes of the genus Treponema serving as the primary causative agents. Key species include Treponema medium, Treponema denticola, and Treponema phagedenis, which are consistently dominant in lesion microbiomes and exhibit motility and tissue-invasive properties essential for pathogenesis. These treponemes were first isolated and genomically characterized from bovine lesions in the early 2000s, revealing bovine-specific phylotypes distinct from those in other hosts. In chronic lesions, Treponema spp. comprise a significant portion of the bacterial population, often around 40-50% based on molecular quantification, underscoring their central role in disease persistence. Recent research (as of 2025) has highlighted proteolytic dysfunction in DD lesions, contributing to tissue degradation and linking further to Treponema activity. Secondary bacteria, such as Fusobacterium necrophorum and Porphyromonas spp., contribute to initial tissue damage through necrotizing activity and proteolytic enzymes, thereby establishing anaerobic microenvironments that facilitate Treponema invasion and proliferation. This synergistic interaction is evident in lesion progression, where early stages feature higher proportions of Fusobacterium and Porphyromonas, transitioning to Treponema-dominated communities in established infections. Detection of these agents relies on molecular techniques, including polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for species-specific identification and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for visualizing spatial distribution within lesions, as traditional culturing yields low success rates due to fastidious growth requirements. Experimental evidence confirms that no single pathogen can induce digital dermatitis alone; instead, co-infection with multiple taxa, particularly Treponema combined with Fusobacterium or Porphyromonas, is necessary for lesion development. The zoonotic potential remains low, with bovine Treponema strains showing phylogenetic similarity to human oral treponemes but lacking transmissibility to humans, as supported by genomic analyses distinguishing host-specific clades.

Risk Factors and Transmission

Digital dermatitis in cattle is influenced by a range of environmental factors that create favorable conditions for bacterial proliferation and skin penetration. Wet and muddy environments, particularly those with high humidity levels, poor drainage, and overcrowding, significantly increase the survival and transmission of causative spirochetes by maintaining moisture around the hooves, which softens the skin and facilitates bacterial entry. Slurry accumulation in poorly drained areas further exacerbates this risk, as it serves as a reservoir for pathogens. Management practices play a critical role in predisposing herds to digital dermatitis. Inadequate hoof trimming leads to overgrowth and trauma, creating entry points for infection, while infrequent footbathing fails to reduce bacterial loads on the skin. The introduction of infected animals into the herd heightens outbreak risk, and zero-grazing dairy systems, characterized by confined housing without pasture access, are associated with higher incidence compared to grazing operations due to prolonged exposure to contaminated flooring. Larger herd sizes and improper grouping, such as mixing dry cows with lactating ones, also contribute by promoting denser contact and shared contaminated spaces. Host-related factors contribute to individual susceptibility. The disease peaks in adult cattle aged 2-5 years, with higher odds in multiparous cows of this range compared to first-calvers in some studies. Genetic predispositions make certain breeds, such as Holstein-Friesians, more vulnerable than others like Jerseys, likely due to differences in hoof conformation and immune responses. Concurrent conditions, including foot rot and interdigital dermatitis, compromise hoof integrity and elevate risk by providing secondary infection sites. Transmission of digital dermatitis occurs primarily through direct contact with infected animals via contaminated bedding and manure, which harbor Treponema species—the key bacterial agents involved. Indirect spread happens via fomites such as shared equipment, boots, and hoof trimming tools that transfer bacteria between animals. The incubation period is variable, often ranging from days to several weeks based on environmental conditions and host immunity.

Diagnosis and Management

Diagnostic Approaches

Diagnosis of digital dermatitis primarily relies on clinical examination, which involves thorough visual inspection of the feet after cleaning to identify characteristic lesions on the interdigital skin, particularly the heel bulbs of the hind feet. This process is often performed in the milking parlor using a mirror and adequate lighting to minimize stress and labor compared to lifting hooves in a trimming chute. Lesion severity is assessed using the M-staging system, which categorizes lesions as M0 (normal skin), M1 (small active lesion <2 cm), M2 (ulcerative active lesion ≥2 cm), M3 (healing scab-like lesion), M4 (chronic hyperkeratotic lesion), or M4.1 (chronic with emerging active lesion), allowing for consistent evaluation across stages as detailed in prior sections on lesion progression. A history of herd-level lameness outbreaks supports suspicion, as digital dermatitis often presents in clusters within affected groups. Differential diagnosis is essential to distinguish digital dermatitis from other hoof conditions based on lesion location and morphology. Unlike foot rot, which causes interdigital necrosis with foul-smelling discharge and symmetrical swelling, digital dermatitis features superficial ulcerative or granulomatous lesions confined to the skin without deep tissue involvement. White line disease involves hemorrhages or abscesses along the white line at the hoof's junction, while sole ulcers present as erosions on the sole with corium exposure, typically on the lateral hind claws; these differ from the heel-bulb specificity of digital dermatitis lesions. Laboratory confirmation is rarely routine due to the reliability of clinical signs but may be pursued in research or ambiguous cases. Bacterial culture is challenging owing to the anaerobic nature of causative treponemes, often yielding inconsistent results. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays targeting Treponema species, such as T. medium, T. phagedenis, and T. pedis, provide sensitive detection (limit ≤70 fg/μl) and 100% specificity from lesion biopsies, enabling phylotype differentiation. Histopathology can reveal spirochetes in tissue samples, confirming the polymicrobial etiology. Advanced diagnostic tools enhance early detection, particularly in herd settings. Infrared thermography measures elevated coronary band temperatures (e.g., >0.99°C difference between rear and front feet) with 89.1% sensitivity and 66.6% specificity at the cow level, allowing non-invasive screening before visible lesions appear. Recent 2024 studies have explored AI-based prediction using infrared thermography for early-onset detection of DD. Digital dermoscopy offers magnified visualization of early skin changes, though less commonly adopted. Herd-level screening employs mobility scoring on a 0-3 scale to identify lame cows for targeted foot examination, facilitating proactive monitoring in high-prevalence environments.

Treatment Options

Treatment of digital dermatitis in cattle primarily relies on topical antimicrobial applications to target active lesions, particularly in early stages such as M2 (ulcerative). Oxytetracycline spray or gel is a widely used option, applied directly to the lesion after cleaning and debridement, achieving a healing rate of approximately 75% within 28 days for M2-stage lesions in dairy cows. Alternatives include lincomycin hydrochloride spray, which demonstrates comparable efficacy to oxytetracycline in resolving active lesions, with healing observed in over 85% of cases after a single application under bandage. Topical copper chelate formulations, such as those combined with zinc sulfate, also promote lesion resolution by disrupting bacterial biofilms, with studies reporting up to 70% improvement in lesion scores after 10 days of treatment. Systemic antibiotics are employed infrequently for digital dermatitis due to concerns over antimicrobial resistance and limited efficacy against the polymicrobial biofilms involved, reserving them for severe or complicated cases with systemic signs. Tylosin administered intramuscularly at 10-20 mg/kg has been used adjunctively. Ceftiofur crystalline free acid, dosed at 6.6 mg/lb (approximately 14.6 mg/kg) subcutaneously, may be considered for acute, painful M2-stage lesions, yet evidence indicates it does not significantly outperform topical options and contributes to resistance in Treponema spp. isolates. Supportive care enhances treatment outcomes by alleviating pain and promoting healing environments for affected feet. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as flunixin meglumine (1.1-2.2 mg/kg IV or pour-on) reduce lameness scores and improve mobility in cows with active lesions, with studies showing decreased lying time and increased feed intake within 24-48 hours post-administration. Foot wrapping with antibiotic-impregnated bandages (e.g., tetracycline paste under cohesive wrap) isolates the lesion, maintaining moisture control and achieving higher resolution rates than spray alone, though wraps should be removed within 24-48 hours to prevent maceration. Concurrently, providing dry, clean bedding and frequent stall scraping supports recovery by minimizing reinfection, as wet conditions exacerbate lesion persistence. Efficacy of these interventions varies, with recurrence rates ranging from 20-50% within months if follow-up care is inadequate, underscoring the need for monitoring post-treatment. Research since 2016 indicates that incorporating biofilm-disrupting agents, such as proteolytic enzymes or chelating compounds alongside antibiotics, can improve healing rates compared to antimicrobials alone, addressing the protective matrix formed by Treponema phagedenis-like spirochetes. Overall, combining topical therapy with supportive measures yields the most reliable short-term resolution for individual cases and active herd outbreaks.

Prevention Strategies

Footbathing protocols represent a cornerstone of digital dermatitis prevention in dairy herds, involving regular immersion of cattle hooves in disinfectant solutions to reduce bacterial load and lesion incidence. Common solutions include 5% copper sulfate, administered weekly for four consecutive milkings on farms with high prevalence (≥15%), which has been shown to decrease active lesion prevalence from 22% to 14% overall. Alternative non-antibiotic options, such as 5-10% zinc sulfate or 2-5% formalin, are used at similar frequencies, with solution replacement after 150-200 cow passages to maintain efficacy; in high-risk herds, baths may occur 2-3 times per week. A systematic review indicates that 5% copper sulfate protocols, applied at least four times weekly, offer the most consistent benefits for treatment among tested options, though evidence for other solutions remains limited due to small sample sizes. Hygiene and biosecurity measures are essential to minimize environmental transmission, particularly in wet or contaminated conditions that exacerbate risk factors like overcrowding. Regular hoof trimming every 3-6 months prevents overgrowth and removes debris, thereby reducing infection opportunities, while dry bedding and frequent cleaning of walkways limit bacterial proliferation in slurry-prone areas. Quarantine of new animals for at least 30 days, combined with disinfection of equipment and visitor footwear, helps prevent introduction of infected stock, as biosecurity lapses correlate with higher within-herd prevalence. Maintaining clean, non-abrasive walking surfaces further supports skin integrity, decreasing lesion susceptibility. Vaccination efforts, primarily using experimental autogenous bacterins targeting Treponema spp., have shown limited prophylactic efficacy in field trials, with no significant reduction in lesion incidence across multiple studies. Nutritional supplements like biotin (20 mg/day) enhance hoof quality and may indirectly lower lameness rates, including digital dermatitis, by improving horn strength and reducing sole ulcers. Genetic selection for resistance is emerging as a long-term strategy, with genomic breeding values identifying Holstein cows less prone to lesions; higher resistance indices correlate with 10-20% lower disease prevalence in selected herds. Post-2016 research highlights advancements in alternative footbath solutions and automation to enhance prevention. In vitro studies suggest essential oil-based options, such as thymol formulations, may control bacterial growth comparable to copper sulfate without environmental residue concerns. Automated hoof washing systems, using water and soap in commercial setups, have reduced digital dermatitis prevalence by up to 40% in treated herds by maintaining consistent hygiene.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4598691/
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6070020/
  3. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/5/4/400
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090023315004372
  5. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.1079/cabicompendium.84966
  6. https://www.vetlexicon.com/bovis/dermatology/articles/digital-dermatitis/
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167587798001329
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4068665/
  9. https://academic.oup.com/femsle/article/269/1/48/494381
  10. https://www.qub.ac.uk/Research/case-studies/treating-bovine-digital-dermatitis.html
  11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167587718306731
  12. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202310.1131/v1
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159121002550
  14. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193870
  15. https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302%2821%2901035-3/pdf
  16. https://dairy.extension.wisc.edu/articles/economics-of-dairy-cattle-hoof-health/
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030213001136
  18. https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302%2823%2900103-0/fulltext
  19. https://extension.psu.edu/lameness-its-costing-you/
  20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569275/
  21. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-933X/2/1/5
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11011063/
  23. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.728691/full
  24. https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(16)00179-X/fulltext
  25. https://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12917-022-03345-x
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030216308219
  27. https://www.icar.org/Documents/ICAR-Claw-Health-Atlas-Appendix-1-DD-stages-M-stages.pdf
  28. https://thedairylandinitiative.vetmed.wisc.edu/lifestep-lameness/digital-dermititis/
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002203021600179X
  30. https://avmajournals.avma.org/view/journals/javma/237/5/javma.237.5.555.xml
  31. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jcm.41.6.2522-2529.2003
  32. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-025-09011-w
  33. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2021.685861/full
  34. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25740778/
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8352065/
  36. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/iai.02077-14
  37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38417669/
  38. https://www.merckvetmanual.com/musculoskeletal-system/lameness-in-cattle/lameness-originating-in-the-hoof-in-cattle
  39. https://www.veterinary-practice.com/article/approaching-a-case-of-digital-dermatitis
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8591176/
  41. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178349
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023313006205
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11609264/
  44. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28465327/
  45. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21957114/
  46. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22749760/
  47. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/fda/fdaDrugXsl.cfm?setid=3b7f6a4a-9b0a-4b0e-8b0e-0b0b0b0b0b0b&type=display
  48. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/avj.13311
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030220302940
  50. https://dairy.extension.wisc.edu/articles/proper-foot-wrap-application/
  51. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7126765/
  52. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2022.1012226/full
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030216308396
  54. https://www.dairyfarmers.ca/Media/Files/proaction/Information_Sheet_Footbaths_for_Prevention-Control-DD-V03-04-2019.pdf
  55. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30771895/
  56. https://dairy.extension.wisc.edu/articles/lameness-risk-landscape/
  57. https://www.nadis.org.uk/disease-a-z/cattle/lameness-control-in-dairy-herds/part-5-digital-dermatitis-causes-treatment-and-control/
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7600182/
  59. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-92162-x
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030215006517
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030212007503
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.