Management Practices Associated With Prevalence of Lameness in Lambs in 2012-2013 in 1,271 English Sheep Flocks.
Management Practices Associated With Prevalence of Lameness in Lambs in 2012-2013 in 1,271 English Sheep Flocks.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fvets.2020.519601
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Green LE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lewis KE;Green LE
与母羊跛行低患病率相关的管理实践的证据基础是稳健的。目前的最佳做法是及时治疗，即使是轻度跛脚羊与胃肠外和局部抗生素没有常规或治疗脚修剪，并避免常规足浴。迄今为止，对羔羊跛行的管理知之甚少。数据来自2013年由1，271名英国牧羊人完成的问卷调查。使用潜类（LC）分析研究羔羊和母羊的蹄病治疗与几何平均群跛行患病率（GMPL）之间的相关性，使用多项模型研究治疗对群管理的影响。不同的羊群类型，确定了母羊和羔羊。在母羊和羔羊模型中，均存在GMPL <2%的LC（1），其中跛行的感染性原因很少，农民很少治疗跛行动物。仅在母羊中存在第二个LC（GMPL 3.2%），其中存在跛行的感染性原因，但农民遵循“最佳实践”并明显控制跛行。在其他类型中，农民没有使用最佳实践，GMPL高于LC 1（分别为3.9-4.2%和2.8- 3.5%）。在多项模型中，与≤ 2%相比，当超过2-5%的羔羊跛行时，农民更有可能使用肠外抗生素治疗羔羊。一旦>10%的羔羊是跛脚的，而农民可能使用肠胃外抗生素，只有运动评分>2的羊被认为是跛脚的，留下跛脚的羊未经治疗，潜在地允许蹄病的传播。这些农民还采用了常规足部修剪和洗脚的不良做法，延迟淘汰和生物安全性差。我们的结论是，没有有利于管理羔羊跛行的管理方法与母羊不同;然而，目前羔羊跛行未采用“最佳实践”治疗。在所有跛行患病率<2%的羊群中，跛行的传染性原因很少见，农民很少治疗跛行动物，而且也没有对常规足部修剪或洗脚进行不良管理。如果更多的农民在母羊和羔羊中采用“最佳实践”，羔羊跛行的患病率可以降低到<2%，抗生素的使用将减少，羊的福利将得到改善。
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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Kaler, J.;Green, L. E.
通讯作者：
Green, L. E.
DOI：
10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
发表时间：
1995-01-01
影响因子：
5.8
作者：
BENJAMINI, Y;HOCHBERG, Y
通讯作者：
HOCHBERG, Y
影响因子：
2.2
作者：
Duncan, J. S.;Grove-White, D.;Williams, H. W.
通讯作者：
Williams, H. W.
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Kennan, RM;Dhungyel, OP;Rood, JI
通讯作者：
Rood, JI
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Angell, J. W.;Duncan, J. S.;Grove-White, D. H.
通讯作者：
Grove-White, D. H.