Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:51:25.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of farmer recognition and reporting of lameness in adults in 35 lowland sheep flocks in England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

EM King  and
LE Green
EM King
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: [email protected]
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.

The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of farmer recognition and reporting of lameness in their sheep flock when compared with the prevalence of lameness observed by a researcher. Thirty-five sheep farms were visited. Farmers were asked for estimates of the prevalence of lameness in 2008, in the flock and in one group of sheep that was inspected by the researcher the same day. These estimates were then compared with the researcher's estimate of lameness. All farmers were able to recognise lame sheep but they slightly under reported the prevalence of lameness in the group selected for examination when compared with the researcher's estimate. The proportion underestimated increased as the prevalence of lameness in the group increased. Farmer estimates on the day were consistently, closely and significantly correlated to that of the researcher's estimate of prevalence of lameness. We conclude that farmer estimates of prevalence of lameness in sheep are a sufficiently accurate and reliable tool for risk factor studies. The prevalence of lameness in sheep, nationally, is probably higher than the current estimate of 10% by 2-3%.

Keywords

animal welfarefarmer reliabilitylamenessrecognitionreportingsheep
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , August 2011 , pp. 321 - 328
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

EBLEX 2008 EBLEX English Performance Recorded Flocks Directory 2008. EBLEX Better Returns Programme: Huntington, UKGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L and Carlsmith, JM 1959 Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58: 203–210CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, LE, Wassink, GJ, Grogono-Thomas, R, Moore, LJ and Medley, GF 2007 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. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 78: 172–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grogono-Thomas, R and Johnston, AM 1997 A Study of Ovine Lameness. MAFF Final Report MAFF Open contract OC59 45K. DEFRA Publications: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hawker, EM 2008 An intervention study to minimise lameness in sheep. MSc Thesis, University of Warwick, 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. Preventative 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, Wassink, GJ and Green, LE 2008 The inter- and intra-observer reliability of a locomotion scoring scale for sheep. Veterinary Journal 180: 189–194CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krysan, M, Schuman, H, Scott, LJ and Beatty, P 1994 Response rates and response content in mail surveys versus face-to-face surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 58: 410–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, KA, Whay, HR, Maggs, CM, Barker, ZE, Paul, ES, Bell, AK and Main, DCJ 2010 Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 1. Understanding barriers to lameness control on dairy farms. Research in Veterinary Science doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2010.02.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, DJ, Walker, RI, Cullis, BR and Luff, MF 1991 The effect of footrot on body weight and wool growth of sheep. Australian Veterinary Journal 68: 45–49CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan-Davies, C, Waterhouse, A, Milne, CE and Stott, AW 2006 Farmers’ opinions on welfare, health and production practices in extensive hill sheep flocks in Great Britain. Livestock Science 104: 268–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrie, A and Watson, P 1999 Statistics for Veterinary and Animal Science. Blackwell Science Ltd: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Rubin, HJ and Rubin, IS 1995 Qualitative Interviewing: The Art Of Hearing Data. Chapter 4: Choosing interviewees and judging what they say pp 65–92. SAGE Publications Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Rural Payments Agency 2010 Available at: http://www.rpa.gov.uk/rpa/index.nsf/7801c6143933bb248025713f003702eb/328e33d3805ed0f3802573850039eee5!OpenDocument. (Accessed: 02/02/2010)Google Scholar
Sarantakos, S 2005 Social Research, Third Edition pp 151–175. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd: Hampshire, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, DJ, Clark, BL and Jarrett, RG 1984 Differences between strains of Bacteroides nodosus in their effects on the severity of foot-rot, bodyweight and wool growth in Merino sheep. Australian Veterinary Journal 61: 348–352CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wassink, G, George, T, Kaler, J and Green, LE 2010b Footrot and interdigital dermatitis in sheep: farmer satisfaction with current management, ideal management and sources used to adopt new strategies. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 96: 65–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wassink, GJ, Grogono-Thomas, R, Moore, LJ and Green, LE 2003 Risk factors associated with the prevalence of footrot in sheep from 1999 to 2000. The Veterinary Record 152: 351–358CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wassink, GJ, Grogono-Thomas, R, Moore, LJ and Green, LE 2004 Risk factors associated with the prevalence of interdigital dermatitis in sheep from 1999 to 2000. The Veterinary Record 154: 551–555CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wassink, GJ, King, EM, Grogono-Thomas, R, Brown, JC, Moore, LJ and Green, LE 2010a 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
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2002 Farmer perception of lameness prevalence. Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Lameness in Ruminants pp 355–358. 9-13 January, Orlando, USAGoogle Scholar