with a prevalence of 10% lameness reported by farmers who treat lame sheep bytrimming 19 affected feet. We tested the hypothesis that prompt treatment of sheep lame with naturally 20 developing FR or ID with parenteral and topical antibacterials reduces the prevalence and 21 incidence of lameness with these conditions compared with less frequent treatment by trimming 22 hoof horn and applying topical antibacterials. A further hypothesis was that reduction of ID and 23 FR would improve productivity. A lowland sheep flock with 700 ewes was used to test these 24 hypotheses in an 18-month within farm clinical trial with four groups of ewes: two intervention 25 and two control. The duration and severity of lameness was used to categorise sheep into three 26 weighted scores of lameness (WLS): never lame (WLS0), lame for a maximum of six days with 27 locomotion score 2 (WLS1) and lame for more than six days or a higher locomotion score 28 (WLS2). The intervention reduced the prevalence of lameness due to FR and ID in ewes and 29 lambs and the incidence of lameness in ewes. The WLS was significantly lower in sheep in the 30 intervention groups. Ewes with a higher WLS were subsequently significantly more likely to 31 have a body condition score (BCS) <2.5 and have lame lambs. Significantly more ewes lambed 32 and successfully reared more lambs that were ready for slaughter at a younger age in the 33 intervention versus control groups. There was an increase in the gross margin of £630 / 100 ewes 34 mated in the intervention group, including the cost of treatment of £150 / 100 ewes mated. We 35 conclude that prompt parenteral and topical antibacterial treatment of sheep lame with ID and FR 36 reduced the prevalence and incidence of these infectious conditions and led to improved health, 37 welfare and productivity. 38 -3 - Lameness is one of the greatest concerns for poor welfare in sheep (Goddard et al., 2006; 44 Fitzpatrick et al., 2006). It has been estimated to cost the UK industry £24 million / annum 45 (Nieuwhof and Bishop, 2005). More than 90% of farmers in the UK report lameness in their 46 sheep, with a farmer-estimated prevalence of 10% with more than 80% of lameness caused by 47 footrot (FR) and interdigital dermatitis (ID) (Grogono-Thomas and Johnston, 1997; Kaler and 48 Green, 2008a). In a study of 209 sheep farmers, those treating all sheep with FR with parenteral 49 antibacterials and foot sprays reported a significantly lower peak prevalence of FR of 2% 50 compared with the 9%reported by farmers who treated FR by paring the hoof horn and spraying 51 disinfectant on to the foot (Wassink et al., 2003). In addition, farmers who reported prompt 52 treatment of mildly lame sheep also reported a lower prevalence of lameness than those treating 53 groups of lame sheep (Kaler and Green, 2008). Further evidence for the benefits of parenteral 54 antibiotics comes from a prospective longitudinal study of 160 sheep on one farm where the 55 treatment of sheep with FR and ID with parenteral and topical antibacteria...

17In the UK, it has been suggested that abattoirs are ideal locations to assess the welfare

Key results were that the longer sheep had feet in good conformation, the more likely they 24 were to stay in this state; similarly, the longer a ewe was not lame the more likely she was not 25 to become lame. Ewes with poor foot conformation were more likely to become lame (OR: 26

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.

No abstract

are astonishing. No mention, for example, of two of the key protagonists, Calvin Schwabe, in the USA, and Lord Soulsby, in the UK, not least as chairman of the House of Lords report on antimicrobial resistance and as president of the Royal Society of Medicine in 1998-2000. Schwabe, in a symposium at the Royal Society of Arts in 1991, addressed interactions between human and animal medicine past, present and future (Michell 1993). He emphasised the episodic character of medical-veterinary collaboration, with peaks and troughs, rather than steady progress. Historically, what began as one medicine subsequently polarised into human and veterinary research. He also emphasised that, in the 20th century, comparative medicine became diverted excessively towards creating laboratory animal models, rather than studying spontaneous occurring diseases. Gibbs asserts that One Health was born of fear in 2004. Yet, in 2000, the Medical Research Council (MRC), according to its then chairman Sir George Radda, 'warmly endorsed the proposal for a Comparative Clinical Sciences Panel' to foster collaborative study of diseases shared by humans and animals, infectious or not, in order to learn from the similarities and differences. To protect the MRC against accusations of spending 'human' research funds on animal diseases, the proposal included a trial period during which the MRC would award the grants using funds raised from veterinary industries. Tragically, those industries failed to grasp the opportunity to justify a permanent panel. All progress in comparative medicine towards fulfilling the promise widely acknowledged in the 19th century is welcome. The danger is that, in the 21st century, it may be hijacked by zoonoses as it was by rodent models in the 20th. Of course zoonoses are important, not least antimicrobial resistance, but they are part of comparative medicine, not the entirety; comparative genetics, for example, or comparative oncology (as recognised by National Institutes of Health) are at least as important. The paramount value of comparative medicine, call it what you will, derives not from the infections that may come from animals but the insights into mechanisms, prevention and treatment of disease, both human and veterinary.

No abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of farmer recognition and reporting of lameness in their sheep flock when compared with the prevalence of lameness observed by a researcher. Thirty-five sheep farms were visited. Farmers were asked for estimates of the prevalence of lameness in 2008, in the flock and in one group of sheep that was inspected by the researcher the same day. These estimates were then compared with the researcher's estimate of lameness. All farmers were able to recognise lame sheep but they slightly under reported the prevalence of lameness in the group selected for examination when compared with the researcher's estimate. The proportion underestimated increased as the prevalence of lameness in the group increased. Farmer estimates on the day were consistently, closely and significantly correlated to that of the researcher's estimate of prevalence of lameness. We conclude that farmer estimates of prevalence of lameness in sheep are a sufficiently accurate and reliable tool for risk factor studies. The prevalence of lameness in sheep, nationally, is probably higher than the current estimate of 10% by 2-3%.