Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T08:32:44.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Repeated locomotion scoring of a sow herd to measure lameness: consistency over time, the effect of sow characteristics and inter-observer reliability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

RB D’Eath*
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour & Welfare, Veterinary Science Research Group, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK; email: [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.

Investigating variability of scores between different observers, between animals and over time aids the design of valid sampling methodologies for measuring animal welfare. Locomotion scores (0 to 5 scale) were collected: i) from 154 sows in one herd, using three to five observers each time, and scoring sows on up to ten occasions over a 19-month period; and ii) for 123 of these sows, locomotion scoring also took place prior to farrowing and at weaning. The distribution of scores was highly skewed towards low scores (0: 84.8%, 1: 9.5%, 2:4.0%, 3+: 1.7%). Sows showed moderate consistency in their scores over time and later parity sows had higher scores, but there was no effect of stage in the reproductive cycle (days pregnant, pre-farrowing, post-weaning). This suggests that infrequent visits to a farm (eg annual) might provide an accurate estimate of the extent of lameness if a representative range of parities was sampled, although a larger study of more farms would be required to investigate this. The three different types of agreement between observers (absolute differences, matching and association) were assessed as follows: i) analysis of absolute differences between observers showed that the farm manager scored lower than researchers/technicians; ii) exact matching approaches suggested fair or good agreement — agreement was poorest for mild gait abnormalities (score 1 ‘stiff’), and agreement improved if scores were combined into ‘sound’ (0-1) and ‘lame’ (2-5) categories; and iii) measures of association suggested moderate agreement. Inter-observer reliability improved over time until the 5th scoring event. To improve inter-observer agreement, observer training/practice and the use of fewer categories are recommended, and inter-observer agreement should be checked regularly.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anil, SS, Anil, L and Deen, J 2005 Evaluation of patterns of removal and associations among culling because of lameness and sow productivity traits in swine breeding herds. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 226: 956961. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.2005.226.956CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anil, SS, Anil, L and Deen, J 2009 Effect of lameness on sow longevity. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 235: 734738. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.235.6.734CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baxter, EM, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2011 Alternative farrowing systems: design criteria for farrowing based on the biological needs of sows and piglets. Animal 5: 580600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731110002272CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Geers, R, Miele, M and Veissier, I 2003 Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 12: 445455Google Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Keeling, LJ, Gavinelli, A and Serratosa, J 2008 Animal welfare's impact on the food chain. Trends in Food Science & Technology 19: S79S87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2008.09.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokkers, EAM, Leruste, H, Heutinck, LFM, Wolthuis-Fillerup, M, van der Werf, JTN, Lensink, BJ and Van Reenen, CG 2009 Inter-observer and test-retest reliability of on-farm behavioural observations in veal calves. Animal Welfare 18: 381390Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Bonde, M, Butterworth, A, Perny, P, Bracke, MBM, Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2007a Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment animal welfare. Part 1: a review of existing methods. Animal 1: 11791187CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Botreau, R, Bracke, MBM, Perny, R, Butterworth, A, Capdeville, J, Van Reenen, CG and Veissier, I 2007b Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: analysis of constraints. Animal 1: 11881197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, LJ 2007c Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 225228Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I and Perny, P 2009 Overall assessment of animal welfare: strategy adopted in Welfare Quality®. Animal Welfare 18: 363370Google Scholar
Brenninkmeyer, C, Dippel, S, March, S, Brinkmann, J, Winckler, C and Knierim, U 2007 Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16: 127129Google Scholar
Byrt, T 1996 How good is that agreement? Epidemiology 7: 561Google Scholar
Byrt, T, Bishop, J and Carlin, JB 1993 Bias, prevalence and kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 46: 423429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-VCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danbury, TC, Weeks, CA, Chambers, JP, Waterman-Pearson, AE and Kestin, SC 2000 Self-selection of the analgesic drug carprofen by lame broiler chickens. Veterinary Record 146: 307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.146.11.307CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Passillé, AM and Rushen, J 2005 Can we measure human-animal interactions in on-farm animal welfare assessment? Some unresolved issues. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92: 193209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Rosa, G, Tripaldi, C, Napolitano, F, Saltalamacchia, F, Grasso, F, Bisegna, V and Bordi, A 2003 Repeatability of some animal-related variables in dairy cows and buffaloes. Animal Welfare 12: 625629Google Scholar
Engblom, L, Lundeheim, N, Dalin, AM and Andersson, K 2007 Sow removal in Swedish commercial herds. Livestock Science 106: 7686. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2008 Opinion on Policy Instruments of Protecting and Improving Farm Animal Welfare. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Flower, FC and Weary, DM 2006 Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. Journal of Dairy Science 89: 139146. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72077-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flower, FC and Weary, DM 2009 Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3: 8795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731108003194CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flower, FC, Sedlbauer, M, Carter, E, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Sanderson, DJ and Weary, DM 2008 Analgesics improve the gait of lame dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 30103014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garner, JP, Falcone, C, Wakenell, P, Martin, M and Mench, JA 2002 Reliability and validity of a modified gait scoring system and its use in assessing tibial dyschondroplasia in broilers. British Poultry Science 43: 355363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071660120103620CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbens, N 2008 Animal Health 2008 The Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer. Department of Food and Rural Affairs: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Gilmour, AR, Anderson, RD and Rae, AL 1987 Variance-components on an underlying scale for ordered multiple threshold categorical-data using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics-Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie 104: 149155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0388.1987.tb00117.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, LA, Tolkamp, BJ, Coffey, MP, Ferret, A and Kyriazakis, I 2008 Changes in feeding behavior as possible indicators for the automatic monitoring of health disorders in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 10171028. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0530CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hubbard, C and Scott, K 2011 Do farmers and scientists differ in their understanding and assessment of farm animal welfare? Animal Welfare 20: 7987Google Scholar
Jensen, TB, Bonde, MK, Kongsted, AG, Toft, N and SØrensen, JT 2010 The interrelationships between clinical signs and their effect on involuntary culling among pregnant sows in group-housing systems. Animal 4: 19221928. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731110001102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaler, J, George, TRN and Green, LE 2011 Why are sheep lame? Temporal associations between severity of foot lesions and severity of lameness in 60 sheep. Animal Welfare 20: 433438Google Scholar
Kaler, J, Wassink, GJ and Green, LE 2009 The inter- and intra-observer reliability of a locomotion scoring scale for sheep. Veterinary Journal 180: 189194CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keeling, L, Forkman, B and Veissier, I 2009 Towards a Welfare Quality® Assessment System. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Keen, A and Engel, B 1997 Analysis of a mixed model for ordinal data by iterative re-weighted REML. Statistica Neerlandica 51: 129144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9574.00044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kestin, SC, Knowles, TG, Tinch, AE and Gregory, NG 1992 Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler-chickens and its relationship with genotype. Veterinary Record 131: 190194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.131.9.190CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
KilBride, AL, Gillman, CE and Green, LE 2009 A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of lameness in finishing pigs, gilts and pregnant sows and associations with limb lesions and floor types on commercial farms in England. Animal Welfare 18: 215224Google Scholar
KilBride, AL, Gillman, CE and Green, LE 2010 A cross-sectional study of prevalence and risk factors for foot lesions and abnormal posture in lactating sows on commercial farms in England. Animal Welfare 19: 473480Google Scholar
King, EM and Green, LE 2011 Assessment of farmer recognition and reporting of lameness in adults in 35 lowland sheep flocks in England. Animal Welfare 20: 321328Google 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: 451458Google Scholar
Knowles, TG, Kestin, SC, Haslam, SM, Brown, SN, Green, LE, Butterworth, A, Pope, SJ, Pfeiffer, D and Nicol, CJ 2008 Leg disorders in broiler chickens: prevalence, risk factors and prevention. PLoS ONE 3: e1545. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001545CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 89: 311317CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lucia, T, Dial, GD and Marsh, WE 2000 Lifetime reproductive performance in female pigs having distinct reasons for removal. Livestock Production Science 63: 213222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00142-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Barker, ZE, Leach, KA, Bell, NJ, Whay, HR and Browne, WJ 2010 Sampling strategies for monitoring lameness in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 19701978. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2500CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Main, DCJ, Clegg, J, Spatz, A and Green, LE 2000 Repeatability of a lameness scoring system for finishing pigs. Veterinary Record 147: 574576CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Main, DCJ, Kent, JP, Wemelsfelder, F, Ofner, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2003 Applications for methods of on-farm welfare assessment. Animal Welfare 12: 523528Google Scholar
Main, DCJ, Whay, HR, Lee, C and Webster, AJF 2007 Formal animal-based welfare assessment in UK certification schemes. Animal Welfare 16: 233236Google Scholar
March, S, Brinkmann, J and Winkler, C 2007 Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 16: 131133Google Scholar
Mullan, S, Browne, WJ, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2009 The effect of sampling strategy on the estimated prevalence of welfare outcome measures on finishing pig farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119: 3948. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.03.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Callaghan, KA, Cripps, PJ, Downham, DY and Murray, RD 2003 Subjective and objective assessment of pain and discomfort due to lameness in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 12: 605610Google Scholar
Rushen, J and de Passillé, AMB 1992 The scientific assessment of the impact of housing on animal welfare: a critical review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72: 721743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, Pombourcq, E and de Passillé, AM 2007 Validation of two measures of lameness in dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 106: 173177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, KMD, Langford, FM, Jack, MC, Sherwood, L, Lawrence, AB and Haskell, MJ 2009 Lameness prevalence and risk factors in organic and non-organic dairy herds in the United Kingdom. Veterinary Journal 180: 95105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2008.03.015Google ScholarPubMed
The Council of The European Union 2001 Council Directive 2001/88/EC of 23rd October 2001 Amending Directive 91/630/EEC Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Pigs. EC: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Thomsen, PT, Munksgaard, L and Togersen, FA 2008 Evaluation of a lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 119126. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0496CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuyttens, FAM, Sprenger, M, van Nuffel, A, Maertens, W and Van Dongen, S 2009 Reliability of categorical versus continuous scoring of welfare indicators: lameness in cows as a case study. Animal Welfare 18: 399405Google Scholar
Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bock, B and Roe, E 2008 European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 279297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.008Google Scholar
Weeks, CA, Knowles, TG, Gordon, RG, Kerr, AE, Peyton, ST and Tilbrook, NT 2002 New method for objectively assessing lameness in broiler chickens. Veterinary Record 151: 762764Google ScholarPubMed
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Welfare Quality® Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wells, SJ, Trent, AM, Marsh, WE and Robinson, RA 1993 Prevalence and severity of lameness in lactating dairy-cows in a sample of Minnesota and Wisconsin herds. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 202: 7882Google Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Veterinary Record 153: 197202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.1537.197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winckler, C, Brinkmann, J and Glatz, J 2007 Long-term consistency of selected animal-related welfare parameters in dairy farms. Animal Welfare 16: 197199.Google Scholar
Winckler, C and Willen, S 2001 The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A-Animal Science 51: 103107Google Scholar