The Library

Recognition of lameness and decisions to catch for inspection among sheep farmers and specialists in GB

Tools

Kaler, Jasmeet and Green, Laura E.. (2008) Recognition of lameness and decisions to catch for inspection among sheep farmers and specialists in GB. BMC Veterinary Research, Vol.4 (No.41). ISSN 1746-6148

Preview

PDF
WRAP_Green_1746-6148-4-41.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (318Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-4-41

Abstract

Background: Epidemiological studies have used farmer estimates of the prevalence of lameness in their flocks. This assumes that farmers can identify lame sheep. Eight movie clips of sheep with locomotion from sound to moderately lame were used to investigate the ability of farmers and sheep specialists to recognise lame sheep. Each participant was asked to complete a form and indicate, for each movie clip, whether they thought the sheep was lame and whether they would catch it if it was the only lame sheep or if 2 – 5, 6 – 10 or > 10 sheep were equally lame. The farmers' responses were compared with their estimates of flock lameness prevalence and the interval between observing a lame sheep and catching it. Results: 178 farmers and 54 sheep specialists participated. Participants could identify even mildly lame sheep but made a separate decision on whether to catch them. This decision was dependent on the severity of lameness and the number of sheep lame in a group. Those who said they would catch the first lame sheep in a group were significantly more likely to catch mildly lame sheep (farmer-reported median prevalence of lameness 5% (IQR: 2%–6%)). In contrast, farmers who waited for several sheep to be lame indicated that they would only catch more severely lame sheep (farmer reported median flock lameness 11% (IQR: 9%–15%)). Approximately 15% of farmers did not catch individual lame sheep (farmer reported median flock lameness 15% (IQR: 10%–15%)). The flock prevalence of lameness increased as time to treatment increased and time to treatment was positively correlated with only catching more severely lame sheep. Conclusion: If movie-clips are similar to the flock situation, farmers and specialists can recognise even mildly lame sheep but vary in their management from prompt treatment of the first lame sheep in a group to no individual sheep treatments. The former practices would be appropriate to minimise transmission of footrot, a common, infectious cause of lameness and so reduce its incidence. The analysis also suggests that farmers estimate lameness prevalence relatively accurately because farmers who treated the first mildly lame sheep in a group also reported the lowest prevalence of lameness in their flock.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	S Agriculture > SF Animal culture
Divisions:	Faculty of Science > Life Sciences (2010- ) > Biological Sciences ( -2010)
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Animal culture, Lameness in sheep
Journal or Publication Title:	BMC Veterinary Research
Publisher:	BioMed Central Ltd.
ISSN:	1746-6148
Date:	14 October 2008
Volume:	Vol.4
Number:	No.41
Identification Number:	10.1186/1746-6148-4-41
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
References:	1. Grogono-Thomas R, Wilsmore AJ, Simon AJ, Izzard KA: The use of long-acting oxytetracycline for the treatment of ovine footrot. British Veterinary Journal 1994, 150(6):561-568. 2. Kaler J, Green LE: Naming and recognition of six foot lesions of sheep using written and pictorial information: A study of 809 English sheep farmers. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2008, 83(1):52-64. 3. Wassink GJ, Grogono-Thomas R, Moore LJ, Green LE: Risk factors associated with the prevalence of footrot in sheep from 1999 to 2000. Veterinary Record 2003, 152(12):351-358. 4. Wassink GJ, Grogono-Thomas R, Moore LJ, Green LE: Risk factors associated with the prevalence of interdigital dermatitis in sheep from 1999 to 2000. Veterinary Record 2004, 154(18):551-555. 5. Whay HR, Main DCJ, Green LE, Webster AJF: Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: Direct observations and investigation of farm records. Veterinary Record 2003, 153(7):197-202. 6. Beveridge WIB: Footrot in sheep: A transmissible disease due to infection with Fusiformis nodosus. Studies on its cause, epidemiology and control. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Bulletin No 140 1941. 7. Green LE, Wassink GJ, Grogono-Thomas R, Moore LJ, Medley GF: Looking after the individual to reduce disease in the flock: A binomial mixed effects model investigating the impact of individual sheep management of footrot and interdigital dermatitis in a prospective longitudinal study on one farm. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2007, 78(2):172-178. 8. Hawker EM: An Intervention study to minimise footot in sheep. In MSc thesis University of Warwick; 2007. 9. Kaler J, Wassink GJ, Green LE: The inter- and intra-observer reliability of a locomotion scoring scale for sheep. The Veterinary Journal 2008. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.12.028 10. Petrie A, Watson P: Statistics for veterinary science and animal science. Blackwell Science 1999:170-175. 11. Jack C: A wilcoxon-type test for trend. Statistics in Medicine 1985, 4(1):87-90. 12. Kaler J: Epidemiological investigations into lameness in sheep. In PhD thesis Univserity of Warwick; 2008. 13. Krysan M, Schuman H, Scott LJ, Beatty P: Response rates and response content in mail surveys versus face-to-face surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 1994, 58:410-430.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/294