Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Recognition of lameness and decisions to catch for inspection among sheep farmers and specialists in GB

By Jasmeet Kaler and Laura E. Green


Background: Epidemiological studies have used farmer estimates of the prevalence of lameness in their flocks. This assumes that farmers can identify lame sheep. Eight movie clips of sheep with locomotion from sound to moderately lame were used to investigate the ability of farmers and sheep specialists to recognise lame sheep. Each participant was asked to complete a form and indicate, for each movie clip, whether they thought the sheep was lame and whether they would catch it if it was the only lame sheep or if 2 – 5, 6 – 10 or > 10 sheep were equally lame. The farmers' responses were compared with their estimates of flock lameness prevalence and the interval between observing a lame sheep and catching it.\ud Results: 178 farmers and 54 sheep specialists participated. Participants could identify even mildly lame sheep but made a separate decision on whether to catch them. This decision was dependent on the severity of lameness and the number of sheep lame in a group. Those who said they would catch the first lame sheep in a group were significantly more likely to catch mildly lame sheep (farmer-reported median prevalence of lameness 5% (IQR: 2%–6%)). In contrast, farmers who waited for several sheep to be lame indicated that they would only catch more severely lame sheep\ud (farmer reported median flock lameness 11% (IQR: 9%–15%)). Approximately 15% of farmers did not catch individual lame sheep (farmer reported median flock lameness 15% (IQR: 10%–15%)). The flock prevalence of lameness increased as time to treatment increased and time to treatment\ud was positively correlated with only catching more severely lame sheep.\ud Conclusion: If movie-clips are similar to the flock situation, farmers and specialists can recognise\ud even mildly lame sheep but vary in their management from prompt treatment of the first lame sheep in a group to no individual sheep treatments. The former practices would be appropriate to minimise transmission of footrot, a common, infectious cause of lameness and so reduce its\ud incidence. The analysis also suggests that farmers estimate lameness prevalence relatively accurately because farmers who treated the first mildly lame sheep in a group also reported the\ud lowest prevalence of lameness in their flock

Topics: SF
Publisher: BioMed Central Ltd.
Year: 2008
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (1985). A wilcoxon-type test for trend. Statistics in Medicine doi
  2. (2003). AJF: Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: Direct observations and investigation of farm records. Veterinary Record doi
  3. (2007). An Intervention study to minimise footot in sheep.
  4. (2008). Epidemiological investigations into lameness in sheep. doi
  5. (1941). Footrot in sheep: A transmissible disease due to infection with Fusiformis nodosus. Studies on its cause, epidemiology and control.
  6. (1994). KA: The use of long-acting oxytetracycline for the treatment of ovine footrot. doi
  7. (2008). Naming and recognition of six foot lesions of sheep using written and pictorial information: A study of 809 English sheep farmers. Preventive Veterinary Medicine doi
  8. (1994). Response rates and response content in mail surveys versus face-to-face surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly doi
  9. (2003). Risk factors associated with the prevalence of footrot in sheep from 1999 to 2000. Veterinary Record doi
  10. (2004). Risk factors associated with the prevalence of interdigital dermatitis in sheep from 1999 to 2000. Veterinary Record doi
  11. (1999). Statistics for veterinary science and animal science. doi
  12. (2008). The inter- and intra-observer reliability of a locomotion scoring scale for sheep. The Veterinary Journal doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.