Abstract

Since 2006, farmers in England have received new recommendations on best practice to manage lameness in sheep through a range of knowledge exchange activities. The adoption of each recommendation varied, but in 2013 approximately 50% of farmers reported treating all lame sheep within 3 days of onset of lameness (prompt treatment), 41% did not practice routine foot trimming, 50% culled sheep that had been lame and 14% vaccinated against footrot; all recommended best practices. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of lameness in ewes in England from 2013 to 2015 and to identify changes in practice to manage lameness between 2013 and 2015 and the population attributable fraction for these managements.A longitudinal study with a cohort of 154 English sheep farmers was run for three years, farmers completed questionnaires on lameness in their flock for the previous 12 months in 2013, 2014 and 2015. The geometric mean prevalence of lameness in ewes was 4.1% in 2015, significantly higher than 3.3% and 3.2% for the same 128 farmers who provided data in both 2013 and 2014. Between 2013 and 2015 there was a significant reduction in farmers practising prompt treatment (50.6%–28.6%) but an increase in not practising routine foot trimming (40.9%–79.2%), culling sheep that had been lame (49.4%–81.8%), and vaccinating against footrot (14.3%–29.2%).Not practising prompt treatment, ≥5% of sheep feet bleeding during routine foot trimming, vaccinating ewes for <6 years or not vaccinating at all, and other flocks mixing with the flock, were associated with a significantly higher flock prevalence of lameness. Culling sheep that had been lame was not associated with prevalence of lameness. The population attributable fractions (PAFs) for not vaccinating for>5 years, not treating lame sheep promptly, ≥5% of sheep feet bleeding during routine foot trimming, and mixing of flocks were 34.5%, 25.3%, 2.9% and 2.4%. In 2013, when 50% of farmers used prompt treatment, the PAF for not using prompt treatment was only 13.3%. We conclude that the change in practice by these farmers towards flock-level managements and a reduction in individual prompt treatment of lame sheep negatively impacted the prevalence of lameness in sheep. This change occurred despite the evidence that prompt treatment of lame sheep is highly effective at reducing the prevalence of lameness in sheep flocks and is an example of cognitive dissonance.

Highlights

  • In the UK, lameness in sheep costs the sheep industry £80 – £85 million per annum (Wassink et al, 2010b; Winter and Green, 2017)

  • This paper provides highly novel evidence from a three-year longitudinal study of a cohort of English sheep farmers that when farmers stop following a robust evidence-based management practice to minimise the prevalence of lameness in sheep, that is individual treatment of all sheep in ≤ 3 days of onset of lameness, the prevalence of lameness increases

  • The management changes farmers made with vaccination, culling and foot trimming align with previous evidence for management of lameness (Winter et al, 2015), the increase in the proportion of farmers using these practices did not offset the effect from the reduction in prompt treatment of lame sheep in 2015, and so the overall effect was an increase in the period prevalence of lameness

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In the UK, lameness in sheep costs the sheep industry £80 – £85 million per annum (Wassink et al, 2010b; Winter and Green, 2017). In the UK, footrot, both interdigital dermatitis (ID) and severe footrot (SFR), caused by Dichelobacter nodosus (Beveridge, 1941) is present in > 90% of flocks and causes approximately 70% of lameness (Winter et al, 2015). Contagious ovine digital dermatitis (CODD) is another infectious cause of lameness that is present in 35%–60% of flocks (Angell et al, 2014; Dickins et al, 2016). CODD accounts for approximately 30% of lameness in affected flocks (Dickins et al, 2016). There are other non-infectious causes of lameness such as granulomas and foot abscesses

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.