Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:34:48.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why are sheep lame? Temporal associations between severity of foot lesions and severity of lameness in 60 sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

J Kaler ,
TRN George  and
LE Green
J Kaler*
Affiliation:
The School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Leicestershire LE12 5RD, UK School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
TRN George
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
LE Green
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Jasmeet.Kaler@nottingham.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We investigated the temporal associations between the severity of foot lesions caused by footrot (FR) and the severity of lameness in sheep. Sixty sheep from one farm were monitored for five weeks. The locomotion of each sheep was scored once each week using a validated numerical rating scale of 0-6. All feet were then examined, FR was the only foot lesion observed; the severity of FR lesions was recorded on a scale from 0 to 4. Sheep had a locomotion score > 0 on 144/298 observations. FR lesions were present on at least one foot on 83% of observations of lame sheep but also present on 27% of observations where sheep were not lame; 95% of these sheep with a lesion but not lame had FR score 1. The results from a linear mixed model with locomotion score as the outcome were that the mean (95% CI) locomotion score of 0.28 (0.02, 0.53) in sheep with no lesions increased by 0.35 (0.05, 0.65) in sheep with FR score 1 or 2 and by 1.55 (1.13, 1.96) in sheep with FR score > 2 at the time of the observation; indicating that as the severity of the lesion increased, the severity of lameness increased. One week before an FR score > 2 was clinically apparent, sheep had a locomotion score 0.81 (0.37, 1.24) higher than sheep that did not have an FR score > 2 in the subsequent week. One week after treatment with intramuscular antibacterials the locomotion score of lame sheep reduced by 1.00 (0.50, 1.49). Our results indicate a positive association between severity of FR lesions and locomotion score and indicate that some non-lame and mildly lame sheep have footrot lesions. Treatment of even those mildly lame will facilitate healing and probably reduce the spread of infection to other sheep in the same group.

Keywords

animal welfarefootrotlamenesslocomotionmultilevel modelsheep
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , August 2011 , pp. 433 - 438
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ananth, CV and Kleinbaum, DG 1997 Regression models for ordinal responses: a review of methods and applications. International Journal of Epidemiology 26: 1323–1333CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beveridge, WIB 1941 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: 1–56Google Scholar
Egerton, JR and Roberts, DS 1971 Vaccination against ovine footrot. Journal of Comparative Pathology 81: 179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egerton, JR, Roberts, DS and Parsonson, IM 1969 The aetiology and pathogenesis of ovine footrot I. A histological study of the bacterial invasion. Journal of Comparative Pathology 81: 179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, J, Scott, M and Nolan, A 2006 Assessment of pain and welfare in sheep. Small Ruminant Research 62: 55–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, H 1995 Multi-level Statistical Models. Edward Arnold: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Kaler, J and Green, LE 2008a Naming and recognition of six foot lesions of sheep using written and pictorial information: a study of 809 English sheep farmers. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 83: 52–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaler, J and Green, LE 2008b Recognition of lameness and decisions to catch for inspection among sheep farmers and specialists in GB. BMC Veterinary Research 4: 41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaler, J, Daniels, SLS, Wright, JL and Green, LE 2010 Randomised clinical trial of long acting oxytetracycline, foot trimming and flunixine meglumine on time to recovery in sheep with footrot. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 24: 420–425CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaler, J, Wassink, GW and Green, LE 2009 The inter- and intra observer reliability of a locomotion scoring scale for sheep. The Veterinary Journal 180: 189–194CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, DJ, Walker, RI, Cullis, BR and Luff, MF 1991 The effect of footrot on bodyweight and wool growth of sheep. Australian Veterinary Journal 68: 45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connell, AA and McCoach, DB 2008 Multilevel Modeling of Educational Data. Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
Parsonson, IM, Egerton, JR and Roberts, DS 1967 Ovine interdigital dermatitis. Journal of Comparative Pathology 77: 309–313CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rasbash, J, Browne, W, Goldstein, H, Yang, M, Plewis, I, Healy, M, Woodhouse, G, Draper, D, Langford, I and Lewis, T 2000 A Users Guide to MLwiN, Version 2.1. Multilevel Models Project. Institute of Education: University of London, UKGoogle Scholar
Stewart, DJ, Clark, BL and Peterson, JE 1982 Importance of pilus-associated antigen in Bacteroides nodosus vaccines. Research in Veterinary Science 32: 140–147CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torra, V, Domingo-Ferrer, J, Mateo-Sanz, JM and Ng, M 2006 Regression for ordinal variables without underlying continuous variables. Information Sciences 176(4): 465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twisk, JWR 2003 Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis for Epidemiology. A Practical Guide pp 77–100. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Wassink, GJ, Hawker, EM, Grogono-Thomas, R, Brown, JC, Moore, LJ and Green, LE 2010 A within farm clinical trial to compare two treatments (parenteral antibacterials and hoof trimming) for sheep lame with footrot. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 96: 93–103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whittington, RJ and Nicholls, PJ 1995 Grading the lesions of ovine footrot. Research in Veterinary Science 58: 26–34CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woolaston, RR 1993 Factors affecting the prevalence and severity of footrot in a merino flock selected for resistance to Haemonchus contortus. Australian Veterinary Journal 70: 365–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar