Factors associated with septic arthritis of the distal interphalangeal joint in beef cattle: A case-control study M.F. Chamorro a, *, E.J. Reppert a , L. Robinson a , N. Cernicchiaro b , D. Biller a , M. Miesner a a Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, 1800 Denison Ave., Manhattan, KS 66506, USA b Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, 1800 Denison Ave., Manhattan, KS 66506, USA A R T I C L E I N F O Article history: Accepted 18 December 2018 Keywords: Beef cattle DIJ Lameness Risk factors Septic A B S T R A C T Lameness in cattle is a welfare concern and is associated with important economic losses in beef cattle operations. Infection of the distal interphalangeal joint (DIJ) results in severe lameness and if left untreated carries a poor prognosis. Diagnosis of DIJ infection is challenging in the field. The aim of this study was to determine factors associated with septic arthritis of the DIJ in beef cattle. Thirty-nine beef cattle with a complaint of single-foot lameness were used in this study. History and lameness examination data were recorded and analyzed. Radiographic changes and cytology of synovial fluid of the affected DIJ were used to define the presence (cases) or absence (controls) of DIJ infection. Asymmetric swelling at the coronary band of the affected foot and a lameness score of 4/5 significantly increased the odds (odds ratio [OR] = 63.2 and OR = 120, respectively) of diagnosis of septic arthritis of the DIJ in beef cattle with a single-foot lameness compared to cattle with no asymmetry of the coronary band or lameness scores <3. Routine lameness examination findings could be used in the field to rapidly recognize infection of the DIJ in lame beef cattle. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction Lameness in beef cattle is a common and economically important condition (Terrell et al., 2017). The 2007a National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) beef cow–calf report indicated that the proportion of cows being culled due to lameness was between 5.4% and 31.6% depending on management and size of the herd. 1 The same survey also reported that the proportion of death loss in cow–calf operations due to lameness was 6.4% on average. 2 The NAHMS feedlot 2011 survey indicated that nearly all feedlot operations in US had at least some cattle affected by respiratory disease or lameness, with lameness affecting 92.8% of feedlots with 1000 or more head. 3 Hird et al. (1991) reported that lameness accounted for 1 of the top 3 veterinary service-related expenditures associated with episodes of disease in 57 California beef herds. Moreover, Griffin et al. (1993) estimated that lameness accounts for 16% of all morbidityand for 70% of lost revenue in feedlot operations. Lameness in beef cow–calf operations has a tremendous impact on productivity as reproductive efficiency can be decreased when breeding bulls and nursing cows are affected. A report of lameness in cow–calf operations in Norway indicated that lame cows had on average a 10-day greater calving interval compared with non-lame cows (Fjeldaas et al., 2007). In addition to its economic impact, lameness causes significant pain in affected cattle and is considered a welfare concern. In a recent report involving 147 feedlot nutritionists, veterinarians, and managers, 58% considered lameness to be a welfare concern and 20% considered lameness to be a growing concern (Terrell et al., 2014). * Corresponding author. Present/current address: Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA. E-mail address: mfc0003@auburn.edu (M.F. Chamorro). 1 See: United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, National Animal Health Monitoring System (USDA-APHIS-VS-NAHMS). Beef Cow–Calf Studies 2007–08a. Part IV: Beef Cow Calf management practices in the United States. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_- health/nahms/beefcowcalf/downloads/beef0708/Beef0708_dr_PartIV.pdf (Accessed 18 December, 2018). 2 See: United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, National Animal Health Monitoring System (USDA-APHIS-VS-NAHMS). Beef Cow–Calf Studies 2007–08b. Part V: Beef Cow Calf management practices in the United States. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_- health/nahms/beefcowcalf/downloads/beef0708/Beef0708_dr_PartV.pdf (Accessed 18 December, 2018). 3 See: United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, National Animal Health Monitoring System (USDA-APHIS-VS-NAHMS). Feedlot 2011. Part IV: Health and health management on U.S. feedlots with a capacity of 1000 or more head. September 2013. https://www. aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/feedlot/downloads/feedlot2011/Feed11_dr_- PartIV.pdf (Accessed 18 December, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2018.12.022 1090-0233/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. The Veterinary Journal 244 (2019) 104–111 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect The Veterinary Journal journa l homepage: www.e lsevier.com/locate/tvjl