The Library

A cross sectional study of the prevalence, risk factors and population attributable fractions for limb and body lesions in lactating sows on commercial farms in England

Tools

Kilbride, A. L. (Amy L.), Gillman, Claire E. and Green, Laura E.. (2009) A cross sectional study of the prevalence, risk factors and population attributable fractions for limb and body lesions in lactating sows on commercial farms in England. BMC Veterinary Research, Vol.5 (Article 30). ISSN 1746-6148

PDF
WRAP_Kilbride_Cross-sectional.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (265Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-5-30

Abstract

Background: Lesions on sows' limbs and bodies are an abnormality that might impact on their welfare. The prevalence of and risks for limb and body lesions on lactating sows on commercial English pig farms were investigated using direct observation of the sows and their housing.
Results: The prevalence of lesions on the limbs and body were 93% (260/279) and 20% (57/288) respectively. The prevalence of limb and body lesions was significantly lower in outdoor-housed sows compared with indoor-housed sows. Indoor-housed sows had an increased risk of wounds (OR 6.8), calluses (OR 8.8) and capped hock (OR 3.8) on their limbs when housed on fully slatted floors compared with solid concrete floors. In addition, there was an increased risk of bursitis (OR 2.7), capped hock (OR 2.3) and shoulder lesions (OR 4.8) in sows that were unwilling to rise to their feet. There was a decreased risk of shoulder lesions (OR 0.3) and lesions elsewhere on the body (OR 0.2) in sows with more than 20 cm between their tail and the back of the crate compared with sows with less than 10 cm.
Conclusion: The sample of outdoor housed sows in this study had the lowest prevalence of limb and body lesions. In lactating sows housed indoors there was a general trend for an increased risk of limb and body lesions in sows housed on slatted floors compared with those housed on solid concrete floors with bedding. Sows that were less responsive to human presence and sows that had the least space to move within their crates had an additional increased risk of lesions.

Item Type:

Journal Article

Subjects:

S Agriculture > SF Animal culture

Divisions:

Other > Institute of Advanced Study
Faculty of Science > Life Sciences (2010- ) > Biological Sciences ( -2010)

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):

Sows -- Health aspects, Forelimb -- Wounds and injuries, Hindlimb -- Wounds and injuries, Swine -- Housing, Veterinary pathology

Journal or Publication Title:

BMC Veterinary Research

Publisher:

BioMed Central Ltd.

ISSN:

1746-6148

Official Date:

24 August 2009

Dates:

Date	Event
24 August 2009	Published

Volume:

Vol.5

Number:

Article 30

Identification Number:

10.1186/1746-6148-5-30

Status:

Peer Reviewed

Access rights to Published version:

Open Access

Funder:

Great Britain. Dept. for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

Grant number:

AW0135 (DEFRA)

References:

1. Edwards SA, Lightfoot AL: The effect of floor type in farrowing
pens on pig injury II Leg and teat damage in sows. British Veterinary
Journal 1986, 142(5):141-145.
2. von Berner H, Hermans W, Papsthard E: Diseases of the hind legs
on pigs with regard to bursitis and their relation to the type
of floor. Berliner und Munichener Tierarztliche Woschenschrift 1990,
103:51-60.
3. Leeb B, Leeb C, Troxler J, Schuh M: Skin lesions and callosities in
group-housed pregnant sows: animal-related welfare indicators.
Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica - Section A: Animal Science, SUPPL
2001:82-87.
4. Bonde M, Rousing TJ, Badsberg H, Sørensen JT: Associations
between lying-down behaviour problems and body condition,
limb disorders and skin lesions of lactating sows housed
in farrowing crates in commercial sow herds. Livestock Production
Science 2004, 87:179-187.
5. Curtis SE, Hurst RJ, Widowski TM, Shanks RD, Jensen AH, Gonyou
HW, Bane DP, Muehling AJ, Kesler RP: Effects of sow-crate design
on health and performance of sows and piglets. Journal of Animal
Science 1989, 67:80-93.
6. Zurbrigg K: Sow shoulder lesions: Risk factors and treatment
effects on an Ontario farm. Journal of Animal Science 2006,
84:2509-2514.
7. Knauer M, Stalder KJ, Karriker L, Baas TJ, Johnson C, Serenius T, Layman
L, McKean JD: A descriptive survey of lesions from cull
sows harvested at two Midwestern U.S. facilities. Preventive
Veterinary Medicine 2007, 82:198-212.
8. Karlen GAM, Hemsworth PH, Gonyou HW, Fabrega E, Strom AD,
Smits RJ: The welfare of gestating sows in conventional stalls
and large groups on deep litter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science
2007, 105:87-101.
9. Davies PR, Morrow WEM, Miller DC, Deen J: Epidemiologic study
of decubital ulcers in sows. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical
Association 1996, 208:1058-1062.
10. Mouttotou N, Hatchell FM, Green LE: Prevalence and risk factors
associated with adventitious bursitis in live growing and finishing
pigs in south-west England. Preventative Veterinary Medicine
1999, 39:39-52.
11. Dohoo I, Martin W, Stryhn H: Veterinary Epidemiological Research Publisher
AVC, Charlottetown; 2003.
12. Main DCJ, Clegg J, Spatz A, Green LE: Repeatability of a lameness
scoring system for finishing pigs. The Veterinary Record 2000,
147:547-576.
13. Mouttotou N, Hatchell FM, Green LE: Adventitious bursitis of the
hock in finishing pigs: prevalence, distribution and association
with floor type and foot lesions. The Veterinary Record 1998,
142:109-114.
14. KilBride AL, Gillman CE, Green LE: A cross-sectional study of the
prevalence and associated risk factors for capped hock and
the associations with bursitis in weaner, grower and finisher
pigs from 93 commercial farms in England. Preventive Veterinary
Medicine 2008, 83:272-284.
15. Rasbash J, Browne W, Goldstein H, Yang M, Plewis I, Healy M, Woodhouse
G, Draper D, Langford I, Lewis T: A users guide to MLwiN,
Version 2.1, Multilevel Models Project. Institute of Education,
University of London, UK; 2000.
16. Cox DR, Wermuth N: Multivariate dependencies; models, analysis and
interpretation Publisher Chapman and Hall. London; 1996.
17. KilBride AL: An epidemiological study of foot, limb and body
lesions and lameness in pigs. University of Warwick, Biological
Sciences; 2008.
18. June census data, 2003 [http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/work_htm/
publications/cs/farmstats_web]
19. Fearne A, Walters R: The costs and benefits of farm assurance
to livestock producers in England Final report for Meat and
Livestock Commission. Research CfFC: Imperial College London,
Wye; 2003.
20. KilBride AL, Gillman CE, Ossent P, Green LE: A cross sectional
study of prevalence, risk factors and population attributable
fractions for foot and limb lesions in preweaning piglets on
commercial farms in England. BMC Vet Res 2009, 5(1):31.
21. Smith WJ: A study of adventitious bursitis of the hock of the
pigs. University of Edinburgh; 1993.
22. Davies PR, Morrow WEM, Rountree WG, Miller DC: Epidemiologic
evaluation of decubital ulcers in farrowing sows. Journal
of the American Veterinary Medical Association 1997, 210:1173-1178.
23. Boyle LA, Leonard FC, Lynch PB, Brophy P: Effect of gestation
housing on behaviour and skin lesions of sows in farrowing
crates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2002, 76:119-134.
24. de Koning R: Injuries in confined sows. Incidence and relation
with behaviour. Annales de Recherches Veterinaires 1984,
15:205-214.