TEAT INJURIES IN GOATS: ECONOMIC LOSS TO FARMERS

TEAT INJURIES IN GOATS: ECONOMIC LOSS TO FARMERS

Amit Kumar, Naveen Kumar, and Dinesh  

Department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology

Department of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology

Lala Lajpat Rai University of Veterinary and Animal Science, Hisar (Haryana), India-125004

Corresponding author: Amit Kumar, amitdhartterwal@gmail.com

 Abstract

Teat lacerations and teat fistulas pose significant economic challenges for farmers. These conditions result in financial losses due to decreased milk production, increased costs, and potential long-term effects on the affected animals’ overall health and productivity. The prompt management of teat affections is crucial to prevent complications such as mastitis, teat necrosis, and the subsequent loss of the affected quarter. This article aims to provide farmers with valuable information on teat health and emphasize the importance of immediate medical and surgical interventions in treating teat conditions to mitigate economic losses.

Key Words: Teat, Goat, Laceration

Introduction

Goats play a significant role in livestock farming, providing meat and milk. However, they are prone to various surgical conditions that can result in low productivity and substantial economic losses (Abu-Seida and Ahmed, 2007). The anatomical location of the udder and teats in ruminants makes them susceptible to external trauma and injury (Weaver et al., 2005). Among grazing animals, teat laceration is the most common surgical condition, often caused by barbed wires and farm machinery (Singh et al., 2012). In goats, the incidence of teat lacerations is particularly higher due to their pendulous udder and large teats (Singh et al., 2012). Teat injuries can occur due to various factors, including trauma, insect bites, environmental conditions, and the milking machine (Sreenu et al., 2014). These injuries impair the efficient functioning of the teats (Roberts and Fishwick, 2010) and increase the risk of complications such as teat fistulae, mastitis, gangrenous mastitis, or udder sloughing. Prompt repair of teat lacerations is crucial as delays can lead to mastitis or even necrosis of the teat (Singh et al., 2003). Such complications may necessitate the premature culling of affected animals, resulting in significant economic losses (Nichols, 2008a). Early treatment of lacerated teats is essential to prevent infection. The management approach for teat injuries depends on the specific structures involved. Teat lacerations are classified based on factors such as the duration of trauma, localization and conformation of the laceration, and thickness of the lesion. Partial-thickness teat lacerations typically do not require suturing (Nichols, 2008b), while full-thickness teat lacerations generally require suturing to promote proper healing and prevent further complications.

Aetiopathogenesis:

1. Teat lacerations in goats often occur due to the use of barbed fencing wires, which are commonly used for land demarcation in India. These injuries can happen when goats attempt to cross or jump over these wires.
2. Teat lacerations of partial thickness can occur due to suckling by kids. While these lacerations are not usually associated with serious complications, they can be effectively treated with basic wound care techniques.
3. Teat injuries caused by sharp objects like needles, wooden pieces, nails, agricultural implements, horns, and milking machines can result in lacerations. These traumatic injuries have the potential to lead to teat laceration and the subsequent development of fistulas.

Teat lacerations are categorized based on various factors, including the duration of trauma, location, shape, and depth of the injury. They can be either partial-thickness or full-thickness lacerations. Partial thickness lacerations refer to superficial injuries that involve skin loss and damage to underlying structures like muscles and blood vessels but do not extend to the teat cistern. Generally, these lacerations do not necessitate surgical intervention and can be effectively managed with medical treatment. In the case of extensive partial thickness lacerations, suturing may be considered based on the extent of damage. However, it should be noted that if left untreated or not treated promptly, teat infections may develop, potentially leading to mastitis. Teat fistulae, which are tracts originating from the teat canal, are often the result of accidental injuries. They can occur as a consequence of full-thickness teat lacerations that penetrate the teat cistern or can be congenital in nature (Singh et al., 2012). Full thickness lacerations that communicate with the teat cistern are frequently observed in goats. These lacerations give rise to fistulas, causing continuous milk discharge through the opening. Immediate surgical intervention is essential for these types of lacerations to suture and close the fistulous opening. If not addressed in a timely manner, milk serves as an excellent medium for bacterial growth, leading to teat infections that can result in mastitis, necrosis, and sloughing of the affected quarter. Consequently, early identification of teat injuries and providing the necessary medical and surgical treatment are crucial in order to prevent such complications.

Treatment

Surgical intervention is necessary to repair teat lacerations that result in exposed underlying structures. It is recommended to perform the surgical repair within the first 12 hours after the injury occurs to optimize outcomes (Singh et al., 2012). The use of local anesthesia techniques is beneficial in facilitating the surgical repair of lacerated and traumatized udder tissues. These techniques include ring block, inverted-V block, teat cistern infusion, regional anesthesia of the teat, and perineal nerve block, which can be used individually or in combination to provide effective analgesia (Steiner and Rotz, 2003; Lumb and Jones, 1996). Effective management of teat lacerations involves two key aspects: gentle debridement of the laceration to remove any infected or necrotic tissue, and a proper understanding of the blood supply to the teat. However, in small-sized goats with small teats, the luxury of performing debridement may not be feasible. Additionally, the longitudinal orientation of the teat’s blood supply increases the risk of vascular damage, avascular necrosis of the teat, and postoperative sutured wound dehiscence with transverse lacerations as opposed to longitudinal ones Nichols, 2008b; Roberts & Fishwick, 2010). The teat consists of four layers, namely the mucosa, submucosa, muscle, and skin. When repairing a teat fistula, the primary objective is to achieve a tight seal that prevents milk leakage and maintains a steady flow through the teat cistern. This is accomplished by suturing the mucosa, submucosa, and muscle layers using absorbable sutures, followed by suturing the skin using silk or polyamide sutures. Various suture techniques are employed for repairing teat fistulas, and one effective approach involves the utilization of double-layer simple continuous suturing using PGA 3-0, along with simple interrupted suturing of the skin using nylon 1-0 (Simon et al., 2010).

Conclusion

Teat lacerations and the resulting teat fistulas are frequently observed in goats, primarily due to their pendulous udder and elongated teats. Prompt surgical intervention is essential in these cases. Failure to treat teat lacerations in a timely manner can lead to the development of teat fistulas, mastitis, necrosis of the teat, and eventual loss of the affected quarter. These conditions have a significant economic impact on farmers, resulting in milk loss and additional expenses associated with treatment. Therefore, immediate surgical intervention is crucial for managing deep traumatic injuries to prevent further losses.

References

1. Abu-Seida, A.M. and Ahmed, K.A. (2007). External neoplasms in goats: A clinicopathological study on five types. Vet Med J., 55: 33-44.
2. Lumb and Jones (1996). Teat and udder anesthesia of cows. Veterinary anesthesia by Lumb and Jones. 3^rd Lippincott Willians and Wilkins, Philadelphia, Maryland, USA.
3. Nichols, S. (2008a). Teat injuries: managing difficult cases. In Proceedings of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners. 299-304.
4. Nichols, S. (2008b). Teat laceration repair in cattle. Clin. N. Am. Food Anim. Pract. 24(2): 295-305.
5. Roberts, J. and Fishwick, J. (2010). Teat surgery in dairy cattle. In Pract. 32: 388-396.
6. Simon, S., Mohanty, D.N., Remya, V. and Murali, K. (2010). Teat fistula in a crossbred cow and its surgical management. Indian J. Vet. Surg. 31(2): 128-129.
7. Singh, J., Singh, P. and Arnold, J.P. (2012). The mammary glands. In: Ruminant surgery (RPS Tyagi and Jit Singh Eds). CBS Publishers and Distributors Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi. pp. 170-171.
8. Singh, P., Singh, J. and Sharma, P.D. (2003). Surgical conditions of udder and teats in buffaloes. Intas polivet, 4: 362-365.
9. Sreenu, M., Prakash, K.B., Sravanthi, P. and Sudhakar, G.K. (2014). Repair of teat laceration in a cow.  Clin. Sci.2(3): 52-54.
10. Steiner, A. and Rotz, A. (2003). Loco-regional anesthesia of the teat and udder in cattle. In Veterinary Anesthetic and Monitoring Equipment (pp. 133-147). CRC Press.
11. Weaver, D.A., Jean, G. and Steiner, A. (2005). Teat surgery. Bovine surgery and lameness. 2^nded Blackwell Publishing Ltd, UK pp. 158-166.

Please follow and like us: