Changes in prevalence of, and risk factors for, lameness in random samples of English sheep flocks: 2004–2013
Introduction
Lameness costs the sheep industry in GB £24–£80 million per annum (Nieuwhof and Bishop, 2005, Wassink et al., 2010). Financial losses occur because of reduced rates of lambs born and reared, and slower growth rates of lame lambs (Wassink et al., 2010).
In 2004 a random sample of 3000 English sheep farmers were sent a one year retrospective questionnaire requesting information on types of foot lameness (Kaler and Green, 2008) and management of lameness in their flock (Kaler and Green, 2009). A total of 809 (27%) farmers replied after two reminders. The geometric mean prevalence of lameness was 5.4% (95% CI 4.7%–6.0%) and the global mean prevalence of all lameness was 10.6% with an estimated 6.9%, 3.7%, 2.4%, 1.9%, 0.9% and 0.8% of the sheep lame with at least one of interdigital dermatitis (ID), severe footrot (SFR), contagious ovine digital dermatitis (CODD), shelly hoof (SH), foot abscess and toe granuloma respectively. ID and SFR dominated the within- and between-flock prevalence of lameness with 90% lame sheep having these two lesions and 80% farmers reporting that it was the most common cause of lameness in their flock.
In the same study, factors associated with a higher annual period prevalence of all lameness (Kaler and Green, 2009) were routine foot trimming once or more per year compared with no routine foot trimming, routine footbathing and a stocking density of >8 ewes/ha. Separating lame sheep from sound at pasture was associated with a lower risk of lameness. In other observational studies with non-random samples of farmers, lower farmer reported prevalence of lameness was associated with quarantine of new and returning stock, isolation and treatment of all sheep lame with ID or SFR with parenteral and topical antibacterial treatments (Wassink et al., 2003), footbathing and turning a flock to clean pasture to treat ID (Wassink et al., 2004) and catching the first mildly lame sheep in a group for treatment within 3 days of first becoming lame (Kaler and Green, 2008). Factors associated with a higher prevalence of lameness were routine foot trimming (Grogono-Thomas and Johnston, 1997, Kaler and Green, 2009, Wassink et al., 2003, Wassink et al., 2004, Wassink et al., 2005), footbathing to treat footrot (Wassink et al., 2003, Wassink et al., 2004) and a stocking density >8 ewes/ha (Wassink et al., 2003). Two clinical trials have demonstrated that recovery from footrot is most rapid when sheep are treated with parenteral and topical antibacterials with no paring of the diseased foot (Kaler et al., 2010, Kaler et al., 2012).
In 2011 the Farm Animal Welfare Council proposed that the prevalence of lameness in 2004 of 10% should fall to 5% by 2016 and 2% by 2021 (FAWC, 2011) with farmer uptake of existing knowledge. Since 2006 there have been a series of campaigns in England run by AHDB Beef & Lamb (the levy body for beef and sheep farmers) comprising paper and electronic literature and farmer meetings. The aims of the current study were, given the above technology transfer, to test the hypothesis that the prevalence of lameness in sheep had fallen since 2004 and farmers had changed managements of lameness, and to identify novel factors associated with low prevalence of lameness in 2013.
Section snippets
Questionnaire design and administration
A postal questionnaire (available on request) was developed by a group of researchers at the Universities of Warwick and Nottingham. Part of the questionnaire captured detailed information on the period prevalence of lameness, recognition of four foot lesions, management and treatment of lameness, ID and SFR and details about farm and flock. It was based on previous questionnaires designed for research into sheep lameness, available literature and expertise from within the group. Questions were
Response rate and descriptive statistics
A total of 1348 questionnaires were returned after two reminders. Questionnaires missing data on flock size or lameness prevalence were excluded from the analysis. There were 1260 (31.5%) usable responses. Not all respondents answered all questions. There were similar response proportions across counties. Some respondents were from hill or upland farms and others had <200 ewes. These variables were added to the models. The median flock size was 350 ewes (IQR: 230–550). The global mean
Discussion
This paper is the first study of a random sample of English sheep flocks since 2004 (Kaler and Green, 2008b); we provide new evidence that the period prevalence of lameness in sheep in England has fallen from 2004 to 2013 from a global mean of 10.6% to 4.9% and a geometric flock mean of 5.4% (sheep) to 3.5% (ewes) and 2.6% (lambs). The 2013 figures were for ewes only whereas the 2004 figures were asked for ‘sheep’ and the period lameness for lambs was less than that for ewes, so it is possible
Conclusions
This is the first observational study to demonstrate that routine foot trimming is not beneficial to lameness prevalence compared with not routine foot trimming and that as the proportion of sheep feet that bleed during routine foot trimming increases the prevalence of lameness increases. It is also the first to quantify the association between prompt treatment (within three days, and when less than five sheep were lame) and lower prevalence of lameness, and a lower prevalence of lameness in
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by Defra as part of AW0512. Joanne Winter was part funded by a University of Warwick Impact award. Laura Green and Jasmeet Kaler are funded by BBSRC (BB/M012980/1). We acknowledge Defra and AHDB Beef & Lamb for access to sheep farmers and, most importantly, we thank the sheep farmers for completing our questionnaire.
References (29)
- et al.
Naming and recognition of six foot lesions of sheep using written and pictorial information: a study of 809 english sheep farmers
Prev. Vet. Med.
(2008) - et al.
Farmers’ practices and factors associated with the prevalence of all lameness and lameness attributed to interdigital dermatitis and footrot in sheep flocks in England in 2004
Prev. Vet. Med.
(2009) - et al.
A within farm clinical trial to compare two treatments (parenteral antibacterials and hoof trimming) for sheep lame with footrot
Prev. Vet. Med.
(2010) - et al.
A longitudinal study of the role of Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum load in initiation and severity of footrot in sheep
Prev. Vet. Med.
(2014) - et al.
Vet. Rec.
(2015) - et al.
Breeding for Disease Resistance in Farm Animals
(2010) The environment and disease: association or causation?
Proc. R. Soc. Med.
(1965)- et al.
Multivariate Dependencies—Models, Analysis and Interpretation
(1996) - et al.
Veterinary Epidemiologic Research
(2003) - et al.
A field trial to assess the therapeutic and prophylactic effect of a foot rot vaccine in sheep
J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc.
(1985)
A Study of Ovine Lameness. MAFF Final Report. MAFF Open Contract OC59 45K
Efficacy of a multivalent Bacteroides nodosus vaccine against foot rot in sheep in Britain
Vet. Rec.
Randomized clinical trial of long-acting oxytetracycline, foot trimming, and flunixine meglumine on time to recovery in sheep with footrot
J. Vet. Intern. Med.
Why are sheep lame? Temporal associations between severity of foot lesions and severity of lameness in 60 sheep
Anim. Welf.
Cited by (66)
Potential role of biologgers to automate detection of lame ewes and lambs
2023, Applied Animal Behaviour ScienceMultiple model triangulation to identify factors associated with lameness in British sheep flocks
2021, Preventive Veterinary MedicineOvine footrot: A review of current knowledge
2021, Veterinary JournalExploring farmer and advisor lameness management behaviors using the COM-B model of behavior change
2024, Frontiers in Veterinary Science
- 1
Current address: Research Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, Mortimer Market Centre, off Capper Street, London, WC1E 6JB, UK.