Lameness in sheep has economic and welfare implications, including loss of ewe body condition, lower lambing percentages, and poor lamb growth rates. It costs the UK sheep industry around £80 million per year. The majority of lameness is caused by the infectious diseases footrot and contagious ovine digital dermatitis, with white line separation, white line abscesses, and toe granulomas also reported by farmers. Most sheep farmers in the UK have other enterprises and care for their flock part-time. A lameness control plan (LCP) consisting of 37 management practices that covered all aspects of control of lameness was developed for part-time sheep farmers. Testing of the LCP was done using a stepped-wedge trial design with 7 visits to 44 flocks in England over 18 months. Flocks had 100-500 breeding ewes. Locomotion scoring was carried out at every visit, and farmers were interviewed every 6 months to record management practices. Clinical significance of changes in prevalence of lameness within each flock was analysed using the reliable change index (RCI). Management practices associated with prevalence of lameness were assessed using a multi-level multivariable over-dispersed Poisson model. The geometric mean (GM) prevalence of lameness at the start of the trial was 7.3% (95% confidence interval(CI) = 6.3-8.3%). Flocks with a clinically significant lameness reduction had a GM prevalence of lameness of 4.6% (95% CI = 4.1-5.2%), while flocks with a clinically significant increase in lameness had a GM prevalence of 10.5% (95% CI = 9.4-11.6%). Always separating lame sheep at treatment (relative risk (RR) = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.43-0.84) and culling sheep lame ≥2 occasions in a year (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.61-0.92) were associated with a significant reduction in lameness. Compared with not footbathing at all, footbathing sheep when there were outbreaks of interdigital dermatitis reduced lameness (RR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.75-0.96), however, 'routine' footbathing was not associated with a reduction in lameness. Housing during the previous lambing period was associated with a higher prevalence of lameness (RR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.04-1.46). Vaccination in flocks with period prevalence ≥10% did not significantly reduce their risk of lameness compared to lower prevalence flocks. In conclusion, separating lame sheep at treatment, culling sheep lame ≥2 occasions per year, and only using a footbath to treat outbreaks of interdigital dermatitis are flock managements that contribute to improved control of lameness in flocks with part-time farmers.
AprV2 and aprB2 are variants of the apr gene of Dichelobacter nodosus, the cause of footrot in sheep. They are putative markers for severe and mild disease expression. The aim of our study was to investigate the distribution of aprV2 and aprB2 in flocks with and without footrot. Our hypotheses were that both strains are present in endemically affected flocks, with aprB2 and aprV2 associated with mild and virulent phenotypes respectively but that D. nodosus is not present in flocks without footrot. Alternatively, aprB2 persists in flocks without footrot. Despite extensive searching over 3 years only three flocks of sheep without footrot were identified. D. nodosus was not detected in these three flocks. In one further flock, only mild interdigital dermatitis was observed, and only aprB2 was detected. Twenty-four flocks with endemic footrot of all severities were sampled on three occasions and all were positive for D. nodosus and the aprV2 variant; aprB2 was detected in only 11 of these flocks. AprB2 was detected as a co-infection with aprV2 in the 22% of samples positive for aprB2 and was more likely in mild footrot phenotypes than severe. Dichelobacter nodosus serogroups were not associated with footrot phenotype. We conclude that D. nodosus, even aprB2 strains, do not persist in flocks in the absence of footrot. Our results support the hypothesis that aprB2 is associated with mild footrot phenotypes. Finally, we conclude that given the small number of flocks without footrot that were identified, footrot is highly endemic in English sheep flocks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.