Publication Database

Why are the prevalences of umbilical infections/ inflammations/disorders/omphalitis in European dairy calves so variable? (2025)

Art

Poster

Autoren

Meier, Kim Kristin (WE 18)

Mee, John F.

Kongress

XXIV Middle European Buiatrics Congress

Kosice (Slowakei), 07. – 10.05.2025

Quelle

Abstracts from XXIV Middle European Buiatrics Congress

— S. 80–81

Sprache

Englisch

Kontakt

Nutztierklinik

Königsweg 65
14163 Berlin
+49 30 838 62261
klauentierklinik@vetmed.fu-berlin.de

Abstract / Zusammenfassung

Objectives: To explain why the published prevalences of umbilical infections in dairy calves in Europe are so variable.
Materials and methods: A literature search for umbilical health in calves was performed using three databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science) including only publications from Europe. Only articles in English or German with full articles available were included. In order to investigate the prevalence of umbilical infections, articles including only calves with inflammatory diseases of the umbilicus (100 % prevalence) were excluded. But studies recording umbilical diseases in general, e.g. umbilical infections and hernia, were included. All studies included were performed in Europe and used both male and female dairy calves of the species Bos taurus.
Results: Overall, 34 articles were considered. Most studies used „inflammation, infection or omphalitis/omphalophlebitis“ (n = 18), followed by „infection“ alone (n = 8), „disorder/ disease“ (n = 6) and „inflammation“ alone (n = 2) for nomenclature. The preparation used for navel care was mentioned in six studies, while only two studies reported the care method (e.g., dip, spray), as well. Most studies reported disease prevalences at calf‑level (n = 27), while herd prevalences were not mentioned in 20 studies at all. While 29 articles were based on random farm surveys, five studies, however, included only calves with umbilical diseases (e.g., umbilical infection and hernia). Most studies used calves aged under one month (n = 10), followed by up to six months (n = 7). In six studies no age was recorded. The predominant diagnostic technique was clinical examination (n = 32), sometimes supported by ultrasound (n = 7). Out of all studies, 10 studies, however, described no case definition of umbilical infections. Most diagnoses were made by veterinary staff (n = 21), partly
assisted by farmers (n = 4). Almost one‑third of all studies included diagnosis from farmers alone (n = 9). In almost all categories analysed, many studies lacked necessary information (e.g., number of calf examinations, number of herds included, herd and calf prevalence, observer type). Higher prevalences of umbilical infections were found in large studies (> 1,000 calves examined), studies including only calves with umbilical diseases, using ultrasound or necropsy as diagnostic technique, focusing on calves aged less than one month or using diagnosis made by veterinary staff.
Conclusions: This literature analysis showed that there is no consistent nomenclature of umbilical infections. The reason the published prevalences differed so widely is that study designs vary widely as well and, in many cases, the prevalences recorded are not comparable with dissimilar study designs. Key factors are study population (size, age, sick or randomly chosen calves), diagnostic technique and observer type. This underlines the importance of a precise description of study characteristics. Unfortunately, many studies lack important information needed for sufficient comparisons (e.g., method of navel care). Moreover, even though umbilical infections are diseases to be evaluated at herd‑level, many studies did not mention herd prevalences at all. Further analyses are needed to quantify the qualitative results presented here.