Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T17:25:49.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

To dock or not to dock? Faecal soiling measurement in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

VS Soriano ,
FO Stamm ,
CA Taconeli  and
CFM Molento
VS Soriano
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, 80035-050, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
FO Stamm
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, 80035-050, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
CA Taconeli
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Federal University of Paraná, Rua Cel Francisco Heráclito dos Santos, 100, 81531-980, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
CFM Molento*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, 80035-050, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
*
* Contact for correspondence: carlamolento@ufpr.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Faecal soiling is one of the welfare indicators in the AWIN welfare assessment protocol for sheep (Ovis aries) and is measured by dag scores. Studies on dag scoring for ewes with docked and undocked tails have given rise to contradictory results. The aim of this study was to compare faecal soiling between ewes with docked and undocked tails and evaluate inter-rater reliability for faecal soiling of ewes. This study was conducted on a farm in Southern Brazil and included 66 undocked and 94 docked ewes. Dag score was recorded by three assessors on a scale of 1 to 5. There was no significant difference on faecal soiling for docked compared to undocked ewes and the median dag score was 3 (1-5). Repeatability amongst assessors by intra-class correlation coefficient of dag scores on docked and undocked ewes was 0.49 and 0.40, respectively; however, these repeatabilities showed no significant differences. The modest repeatability between three assessors on dag scoring indicates caution as regards the use of faecal soiling as an indicator and suggests a need for further studies. The best field results may be obtained by increasing the assessment sample to at least 160 ewes or by raising the number of assessors to five to promote better inter-observer repeatability. Results suggest that taildocking did not promote cleanliness on the breech area. Considering the negative impact on welfare, it seems reasonable to reverse the burden of proof and desist from recommending tail-docking in the absence of clear scientific evidence of any benefit.

Keywords

animal welfaredagfaecal soilingintra-class correlation coefficientinter-observer reliabilitysheep welfare indicator
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 81 - 87
Copyright
© 2020 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Animal Welfare Indicators (AWIN) 2015 AWIN welfare assessment protocol for sheep. https://doi.org/10.13130/AWIN_SHEEP_2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Wool Innovation Limited and Meat and Livestock Australia 2007 Visual sheep scores. Australian Wool Innovation Ltd: Sydney, NSW, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Barger, IA 1993 Influence of sex and reproductive status on sus-ceptibility of ruminants to nematode parasitism. International Journal for Parasitology 23: 463–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7519(93)90034-VCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, WJ, Bonillo, C and Lecointre, G 2003 Repeatability of clades as a criterion of reliability: a case study for molecular phy-logeny of Acanthomorpha (Teleostei) with larger number of taxa. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 26: 262–288. https://doi.org 10.1016/S1055-7903(02)00371-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, DV and Sparrow, SS 1981 Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: application to assessment of adaptive behavior. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 86: 127–137Google ScholarPubMed
Colditz, IG, Watson, DL, Gray, GD and Eady, SJ 1996 Some relationships between age, immune responsiveness and resistance to parasites in ruminants. International Journal for Parasitology 26:869–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7519(96)80058-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalmau, A, Geverink, NA, Van Nuffel, A, Van Steenbergen, L, Van Reenen, K, Hautekiet, V, Vermeulen, K, Velarde, A and Tuyttens, FA 2010 Repeatability of lameness, fear and slipping scores to assess animal welfare upon arrival in pig slaughterhouses. Animal 4:804–809. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731110000066CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, BS, Chaplin, SJ and Laird, C 2006 Effect of fibre sup-plementation on dag formation and flystrike in sheep grazing spring pastures. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46:783–786. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA05353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) 2014 Scientific opinion on the welfare risks related to the farming of sheep for wool, meat and milk production. EFSA Journal 12: 1–128. https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2015.EN-738Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) 2008 FAWC report on the implications of castration and tail docking for the welfare of lambs. FAWC: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) 2009 Report on farm animal welfare in Great Britain: past, present and future. FAWC: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Fisher, MW and Gregory, NG 2007 Reconciling the differences between the length at which lambs’ tails are commonly docked and animal welfare recommendations. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 67: 32–38Google Scholar
French, NP, Wall, R and Morgan, KL 1994 Lamb tail docking: a controlled field study of the effects of tail amputation on health and productivity. Veterinary Record 134: 463–467. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.134.18.463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaler, J, Wassink, GJ and Green, LE 2009 The inter- and intra-observer reliability of a locomotion scoring scale for sheep. The Veterinary Journal 180: 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.12.028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karlsson, LJE, Pollott, GE, Eady, SJ, Bell, A and Greeff, JC 2004 Relationship between faecal worm egg counts and scouring in Australian Merino sheep. Animal Production in Australia 25: 100–103Google Scholar
Kraemer, HC 1976 The small sample nonnull properties of Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance for normal populations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71: 608–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1976.10481536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kufs, C 2011 Stats with cats: The domesticated guide to statistics, models, graphs, and other breeds of data analysis p 376. Wheatmark: Tucson, AZ, USAGoogle Scholar
Larsen, JWA, Anderson, N, Vizard, AL, Anderson, GA and Hoste, H 1994 Diarrhoea in Merino ewes during winter: associ-ation with trichostrongylid larvae. Australian Veterinary Journal 7:365–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1994.tb00930.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llonch, P, King, EM, Clarke, KA, Downes, JM and Green, LE 2015 A systematic review of animal based indicators of sheep wel-fare on farm, at market and during transport, and qualitative appraisal of their validity and feasibility for use in UK abattoirs. The Veterinary Journal 206: 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.10.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madeira, NG, Amarante, AFT and Padovani, CR 1998 Effect of management practices on screw-worm among sheep in São Paulo State, Brazil. Tropical Animal Health and Production 30: 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005055518916CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
March, S, Brinkmann, J and Winkler, C 2007 Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cat-tle. Animal Welfare 16: 131–133Google Scholar
Morris, MC 2000 Ethical issues associated with sheep fly strike research, prevention, and control. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13: 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009541810740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munoz, C, Campbell, A, Hemsworth, P and Doyle, R 2018 Animal-based measures to assess the welfare of extensively man-aged ewes. Animals 8: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8010002Google Scholar
Napolitano, F, De Rosa, G, Ferrante, V, Grasso, F and Braghieri, A 2009 Monitoring the welfare of sheep in organic and conventional farms using an ANI 35 L derived method. Small Ruminant Research 83: 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrum-res.2009.04.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napolitano, N, Giuseppe, DR, Girolamia, A, Scavonea, M and Braghieri, A 2011 Avoidance distance in sheep: Test-retest reliabil-ity and relationship with stockmen attitude. Small Ruminant Research 99: 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2011.03.044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phythian, C, Michalopoulou, E, Duncan, J and Wemelsfelder, F 2013 Inter-observer reliability of Qualitative Behavioural Assessments of sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144: 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, AR, Dowling, SK and Webster, JR 2011 Raising lambs with intact tails to meet retailer welfare requirements: on farm feasibility and farmer perspectives. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 71: 270–274Google Scholar
Scobie, DR, Bray, AR and O’Connell, D 1999 A breeding goal to improve the welfare of sheep. Animal Welfare 8: 391–406Google Scholar
Scobie, DR, O’Connell, D, Morris, CA and Hickey, SM 2007 A preliminary genetic analysis of breech and tail traits with the aim of improving the welfare of sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 58: 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR05444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scobie, DR, O’Connell, D, Morris, CA and Hickey, SM 2008 Dag score is negatively correlated with breech bareness score of sheep. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48: 999–1003. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheep Standards and Guidelines 2013 Sheep standards and guidelines: tail docking. https://www.animal welfare-standards.net.au/files/2011/05/Sheep-Tail-docking-discussion-paper-5.3.13.pdfGoogle Scholar
Stamm, FO 2015 First glimpse on sheep welfare in the State of Parana and the case of tail docking. Dissertation, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, BrazilGoogle Scholar
Stubsjøen, SM, Hektoen, LA, Valle, PS, Janczak, AM and Zanella, AJ 2011 Assessment of sheep welfare using on-farm reg-istrations and performance data. Animal Welfare 20: 239–251Google Scholar
Sutherland, MA and Tucker, CB 2011 The long and short of it: A review of tail docking in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135: 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appla-nim.2011.10.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, Sprenger, M, Van Nuffel, A, Maertens, W and Van Dongen, S 2009 Reliability of categorical versus contin-uous scoring of welfare indicators: lameness in cows as a case study. Animal Welfare 18: 399–405Google Scholar
Verbeke, G and Molenberghs, G 2009 Linear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data. Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
Waghorn, GC, Gregory, NG, Todd, SE and Wesselink, R 1999 Dags in sheep: a look at faeces and reasons for dag formation. Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 61: 43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware, JW, Vizard, AL and Lean, GR 2000 Effects of tail amputation and treatment with an albendazole controlled-release capsule on the health and productivity of prime lambs. Australian Veterinary Journal 78: 838–842. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2000.tb10504.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watts, JE and Marchant, RS 1977 The effects of diarrhoea, tail length, and sex on the incidence of breech strike in modified mulesed Merino sheep. Australian Veterinary Journal 53: 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1977.tb00132.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wemelsfelder, F and Mullan, S 2014 Applying ethological and health indicators to practical animal welfare assessment. Scientific and technical review. Office International des Epizooties 33: 11–20. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.33.1.2259Google Scholar