Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T12:27:01.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of rapid treatment of sheep lame with footrot on welfare and economics and farmer attitudes to lameness in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

LE Green ,
J Kaler ,
GJ Wassink ,
EM King  and
R Grogono Thomas
LE Green*
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
J Kaler
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Sutton Bonington, Leicestershire LE12 5RD, UK
GJ Wassink
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
EM King
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
R Grogono Thomas
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 7DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: laura.green@warwick.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This review article summarises the evidence for an effective management protocol for footrot to sheep, the welfare and economic benefits of such a protocol and its likely uptake by farmers. Over 90% of lameness in sheep in England is caused by Dichelobacter nodosus, the aetiological agent of footrot. Farmers can recognise lame sheep both from video clips and when examining their own sheep but make a separate decision about whether to catch lame sheep. Only farmers who catch and treat mildly lame sheep immediately report a low prevalence of lameness (< 5%). From a within-farm clinical trial, treatment of sheep lame with footrot with parenteral antibiotic and topical spray led to over 90% recovery from lameness within 10 days whilst only 25% of sheep treated with foot trimming and topical spray recovered in 10 days. In parallel, a within-farm clinical trial with approximately 800 ewes was run for 18 months to test the hypothesis that rapid appropriate treatment led to reduced prevalence of lameness. Ewes were stratified and randomly allocated to one of two groups. The prevalence and incidence of lameness decreased in the treatment group, where lame sheep were treated with parenteral and topical antibacterials within three days of being observed lame, but remained at approximately 8% in the control group where lame sheep were treated with trimming hoof horn and topical antibacterial spray when the farm shepherd considered them sufficiently lame. Sheep in the treatment group had a higher body condition and produced more lambs that grew faster. The net economic benefit to all sheep (whether lame or not) in 2006 was £6 per ewe put to the ram. A group of 265 farmers were asked about their satisfaction with methods to manage footrot. Satisfied farmers reported a prevalence of lameness of ≤ 5% and used rapid individual treatment. Dissatisfied farmers reported a prevalence of lameness of > 5% and used whole-flock footbathing and vaccination. Overall, farmers stated that their ideal managements would be footbathing and vaccination. One explanation for this apparent inconsistency is that farmers want effective vaccines and footbaths; an alternative explanation is that this is an example of cognitive dissonance, where subjects adopt a belief because it is their current practice despite evidence that it is not effective. We conclude that farmers can identify lame sheep and that rapid treatment of individual sheep lame with footrot with intramuscular and topical antibacterials is currently the most effective control of interdigital dermatitis and footrot in sheep but that in future effective measures that prevent footrot would be ideal.

Keywords

animal welfareDichelobacter nodosusfootrotlamenesssheeptreatment control
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue S1: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Making animal improvements: Economic and other incentives and constraints’ Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, UK, 2011 , May 2012 , pp. 65 - 71
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beveridge, WIB 1941 Foot rot in sheep: a transmissible disease due to infection with Fusiformis nodosus (n sp): studies on its cause, epidemiology and control. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Australian Bulletin 140: 1–56Google Scholar
FAWC 2011 Farm Animal Welfare Council Opinion on Lameness. FAWC: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L 1957 A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L and Carlsmith, JM 1959 Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology 58: 203–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0041593CrossRefGoogle 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. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 78: 172–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2006.09.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grogono-Thomas, R and Johnston, AM 1997 A Study of Ovine Lameness. MAFF Final 9 Report MAFF Open contract OC59 45K. DEFRA Publications: 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: 52–64. 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: 41CrossRefGoogle 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: 189–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.12.028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaler, J and Green, LE 2009 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. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 92: 52–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.08.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaler, J, Daniels, SLS, Wright, JL and Green, LE 2010a A randomised factorial design clinical trial to investigate the impact of parenteral long acting oxytetracycline, foot trimming and flunixine meglumine on time to recovery from lameness and foot lesions in sheep lame with footrot. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 24: 420–425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2009.0450.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaler, J, Medley, GF, Grogono-Thomas, R, Wellington, EMH, Calvo-Bado, LA, Wassink, GJ, King, EM, Moore, LJ, Russell, C and Green, LE 2010b Factors associated with changes of state of foot conformation and lameness in a flock of sheep. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 97: 237–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.09.019CrossRefGoogle 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: 321–328Google Scholar
Morgan, KL 1987 Footrot. In Practice 9: 124–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/inpract.9.4.124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 268–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.04.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wassink, GJ, Grogono-Thomas, R, Moore, LJ and Green, LE 2003a Risk factors associated with the prevalence of footrot in sheep from 1999 to 2000. The Veterinary Record 152: 351–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.152.12.351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wassink, GJ, Grogono-Thomas, R, Moore, LJ and Green, LE 2003b Exploratory findings on the prevalence of contagious ovine digital dermatitis in sheep in England and Wales during 1999 to 2000. The Veterinary Record 152: 504–506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.152.16.504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wassink, GJ, Grogono-Thomas, R, Moore, LJ and Green, LE 2004 Risk factors associated with interdigital dermatitis in sheep 1999-2000. Veterinary Record 155: 551–555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.154.18.551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wassink, GJ, Hawker, 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: 93–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wassink, GJ, George, TRN, Kaler, J and Green, LE 2010b Footrot and interdigital dermatitis in sheep: farmer satisfaction with current management, their ideal management and sources used to adopt new strategies. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 96: 65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar