ABSTRACT
Since 2004, the prevalence of lameness in sheep flocks in England has reduced as farmers have adopted evidence-based management practices to control lameness. In 2011, the Farm Animal Welfare Council proposed a target prevalence of <2% lameness in sheep by 2021. This study investigated whether that target had been achieved and determined which practices were associated with prevalence of lameness. A postal questionnaire was sent to 1000 randomly selected farmers to investigate the prevalence of lameness and management practices in 2022. The geometric mean prevalence of lameness was <2% in ewes and lambs, but the median was 3%; approximately 26% flocks had <2% lameness. Data were analysed using robust variable selection with multivariable linear models. Farmers that quarantined ewes for ≥3 weeks and did not use foot bathing or foot trimming to prevent lameness had 40-50% lower prevalence of lameness than those not using these practices. Fewer farmers (19.0%) were always using parenteral antimicrobials to treat footrot, an effective practice, than in previous research (49.7%). We conclude that the target of <2% lameness in England has been achieved by 26% of farmers, and further work is required for more farmers to follow the evidence-based management practices to minimise lameness.
ABSTRACT
The evidence base for management practices associated with low prevalence of lameness in ewes is robust. Current best practice is prompt treatment of even mildly lame sheep with parenteral and topical antibiotics with no routine or therapeutic foot trimming and avoiding routine footbathing. To date, comparatively little is known about management of lameness in lambs. Data came from a questionnaire completed by 1,271 English sheep farmers in 2013. Latent class (LC) analyses were used to investigate associations between treatment of footrot and geometric mean flock prevalence of lameness (GMPL) in lambs and ewes, with multinomial models used to investigate effects of flock management with treatment. Different flock typologies were identified for ewes and lambs. In both ewe and lamb models, there was an LC (1) with GMPL <2%, where infectious causes of lameness were rare, and farmers rarely treated lame animals. There was a second LC in ewes only (GMPL 3.2%) where infectious causes of lameness were present but farmers followed "best practice" and apparently controlled lameness. In other typologies, farmers did not use best practice and had higher GMPL than LC1 (3.9-4.2% and 2.8-3.5%, respectively). In the multinomial model, farmers were more likely to use parenteral antibiotics to treat lambs when more than 2-5% of lambs were lame compared with ≤2%. Once >10% of lambs were lame, while farmers were likely to use parenteral antibiotics, only sheep with locomotion score >2 were considered lame, leaving lame sheep untreated, potentially allowing spread of footrot. These farmers also used poor practices of routine foot trimming and footbathing, delayed culling, and poor biosecurity. We conclude there are no managements beneficial to manage lameness in lambs different from those for ewes; however, currently lameness in lambs is not treated using "best practice." In flocks with <2% prevalence of all lameness, where infectious causes of lameness were rare, farmers rarely treated lame animals but also did not practice poor managements of routine foot trimming or footbathing. If more farmers adopted "best practice" in ewes and lambs, the prevalence of lameness in lambs could be reduced to <2%, antibiotic use would be reduced, and sheep welfare would be improved.