Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-29T19:14:14.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observing lame sheep: evaluating test agreement between group-level and individual animal methods of assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

CJ Phythian ,
PC Cripps ,
D Grove-White ,
PH Jones ,
E Michalopoulou  and
JS Duncan
CJ Phythian*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare and Behaviour Group, School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK Department of Epidemiology, University of Liverpool, Institute of Global Health and Infection, and Population Health, Leahurst, Neston CH64 7TE, UK
PC Cripps
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, Neston CH64 7TE, UK
D Grove-White
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, Neston CH64 7TE, UK
PH Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology, University of Liverpool, Institute of Global Health and Infection, and Population Health, Leahurst, Neston CH64 7TE, UK
E Michalopoulou
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, Neston CH64 7TE, UK
JS Duncan
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, Neston CH64 7TE, 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.

For on-farm sheep welfare assessment, a reliable, simple and robust method is required to assess the level of flock lameness. This study examined the level of test agreement for two binary lameness scoring systems for sheep. The first was a group-level lameness assessment of sheep performed on ungathered sheep at pasture and was termed group observation method (GOM). The second method of lameness assessment was performed after gathering of the sheep and involved close observation of the gait of individual sheep in a handling pen and was termed individual animal gait assessment (IAGA). Following individual gait assessment, each sheep was also examined for the presence of specific foot and limb lesions: white line lesions (WL); inter-digital dermatitis (ID); footrot (FR); contagious digital dermatitis (CODD); toe granuloma (TG); and joint swellings (JS). A total of 3,074 sheep were assessed from 40 flocks in North England and Wales by one assessor. Test agreement between the assessment methods was found to be good as judged by linear regression and Bland-Altman plots. The method of group observation identified a slightly higher proportion of lame sheep compared to the individual animal examination and also appeared to be a more feasible on-farm method of observation. Over half of the sample sheep were identified with WL but this did not appear to be associated with a high level of lameness (as assessed by IAGA) with just under 12% of sheep with WL being identified as lame. In contrast, the percentage of lame sheep was most closely associated with CODD and over 80% of animals with this lesion were scored as lame.

Keywords

animal welfarefoot lesionlamenesson-farm assessmentsheeptest agreement
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , November 2013 , pp. 417 - 422
Copyright
© 2013 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Abramson, ZH and Abramson, JH 2008 Research Methods in Community Medicine: Surveys, Epidemiological Research, Programme Evaluation, Clinical Trials pp 161–178. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bland, JM and Altman, DG 1986 Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1: 307–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8Google ScholarPubMed
Conington, J, Nicoll, L, Mitchell, S and Bünger, L 2010 Characterisation of white line degeneration in sheep and evidence for genetic influences on its occurrence. Veterinary Research Communications 34: 481–489CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) 2011 Opinion on Lameness in Sheep. FAWC: London, UK. http://www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/sheep-lameness-opinion-110328.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, J, Scott, M and Nolan, A 2006 Assessment of pain and welfare in sheep. Small Ruminant Research 62: 55–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.07.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiner, M and Gardner, A 2000 Application of diagnostic tests in veterinary epidemiologic studies. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 45: 43–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(00)00116-1Google ScholarPubMed
Harkins, LS 2005 Development of a prototype welfare tool for use in sheep. Master of Science Thesis, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UKGoogle Scholar
Hodgkinson, O 2010 The importance of feet examination in sheep health management. Small Ruminant Research 92: 67–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2010.04.007Google 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: 52–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-4-41Google Scholar
Kaler, J, Wassink, GJ and Green, LE 2009 The inter- and intra-observer reliability of a locomotion scoring scale for sheep. The Veterinary Journal 180: 189–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.12.028Google ScholarPubMed
King, EM and Green, LE 2011a Why are sheep lame? Temporal associations between severity of foot lesions and severity of lameness in 60 sheep. Animal Welfare 20: 433–438Google Scholar
King, EM and Green, LE 2011b Assessment of farmer recognition and reporting of lameness in adults in 35 lowland sheep flocks in England. Animal Welfare 20: 321–328Google Scholar
Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2009 On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future perspectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach. Animal Welfare 18: 451–458Google Scholar
Ley, SJ, Livingston, A and Waterman, AE 1989 The effect of chronic clinical pain on thermal and mechanical thresholds in sheep. Pain 39: 353–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(89)90049-3Google ScholarPubMed
Nieuwhof, GJ and Bishop, SC 2005 Costs of the major endemic diseases of sheep in Great Britain and the potential benefits of reduction in disease impact. Animal Science 81: 23–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/ASC41010023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phythian, CJ 2011 Development of indicators for the on-farm assessment of sheep welfare. PhD Thesis, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UKGoogle Scholar
Phythian, CJ, Cripps, PJ, Michalopoulou, E, Jones, PH, Grove-White, D, Clarkson, MJ, Winter, AC, Stubbings, LA and Duncan, JS 2012 Reliability of on-farm indicators of sheep welfare assessed by a group observation method. The Veterinary Journal 193: 257–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.12.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winter, AC 2001 Lameness in sheep: 1. Diagnosis. In Practice 26: 58–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/inpract.26.2.58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, AC 2008 Lameness in sheep. Small Ruminant Research 76: 149–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2007.12.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar