Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-g4kps Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T09:44:22.455Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of lameness in sows using gait, footprints, postural behaviour and foot lesion analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2013

J. Grégoire ,
R. Bergeron ,
S. D'Allaire ,
M.-C. Meunier-Salaün  and
N. Devillers
J. Grégoire
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Dairy and Swine R & D Centre, Sherbrooke, QC, J1M 0C8 Canada Department of Animal Science, Université Laval, Québec, QC, G1V 0A6 Canada
R. Bergeron
Affiliation:
University of Guelph, Alfred Campus, Alfred, ON, K0B 1A0 Canada
S. D'Allaire
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, St-Hyacinthe, QC, J2S 7C6 Canada
M.-C. Meunier-Salaün
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE (Physiologie, Environnement et Génétique pour l'Animal et les Systèmes d’Élevage), F-35590 Saint Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1348 PEGASE (Physiologie, Environnement et Génétique pour l'Animal et les Systèmes d’Élevage), F-35000 Rennes, France
N. Devillers*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Dairy and Swine R & D Centre, Sherbrooke, QC, J1M 0C8 Canada
*
†E-mail: Nicolas.Devillers@agr.gc.ca
Get access

Abstract

Lameness in sows has an economic impact on pig production and is a major welfare concern. The aim of the present project was to develop methods to evaluate and quantify lameness in breeding sows. Five methods to study lameness were compared between themselves and with visual gait scoring used as a reference: footprint analysis, kinematics, accelerometers, lying-to-standing transition and foot lesion observation. Fifty sows of various parities and stages of gestation were selected using visual gait scoring and distributed into three groups: lame (L), mildly lame (ML) and non-lame (NL). They were then tested using each method. Kinematics showed that L sows had a lower walking speed than NL sows (L: 0.83 ± 0.04, NL: 0.96 ± 0.03 m/s; P < 0.05), a shorter stride length than ML sows (L: 93.0 ± 2.6, ML: 101.2 ± 1.5 cm; P < 0.05) and a longer stance time than ML and NL sows (L: 0.83 ± 0.03, ML: 0.70 ± 0.03, NL: 0.69 ± 0.02 s; P < 0.01). Accelerometer measurements revealed that L sows spent less time standing over a 24-h period (L: 6.3 ± 1.3, ML: 13.7 ± 2.4, NL: 14.5 ± 2.4%; P < 0.01), lay down earlier after feeding (L: 33.4 ± 4.6, ML: 41.7 ± 3.1, NL: 48.6 ± 2.9 min; P < 0.05) and tended to step more often during the hour following feeding (L: 10.1 ± 2.0, ML: 6.1 ± 0.5, NL: 5.4 ± 0.4 step/min standing; P = 0.06) than NL sows, with the ML sows having intermediate values. Visual observation of back posture showed that 64% of L sows had an arched back, compared with only 14% in NL sows (P = 0.02). Finally, footprint analysis and observation of lying-to-standing transition and foot lesions were not successful in detecting significant differences between L, ML and NL sows. In conclusion, several quantitative variables obtained from kinematics and accelerometers proved to be successful in identifying reliable indicators of lameness in sows. Further work is needed to relate these indicators with causes of lameness and to develop methods that can be implemented on the farm.

Keywords

visual scoringkinematicsaccelerometerposturestepping
Type
Behaviour, welfare and health
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 7 , July 2013 , pp. 1163 - 1173
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Anil, SS, Anil, L, Deen, J 2009. Effect of lameness on sow longevity. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 235, 734–738.Google Scholar
Anil, SS, Anil, L, Deen, J, Baidoo, SK, Walker, RD 2007. Factors associated with claw lesions in gestating sows. Journal of Swine Health and Production 15, 78–83.Google Scholar
Blackie, N, Bleach, E, Amory, J, Scaife, J 2011. Impact of lameness on gait characteristics and lying behaviour of zero grazed dairy cattle in early lactation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 129, 67–73.Google Scholar
Bobbert, MF, Álvarez, CBG, Van Weeren, PR, Roepstorff, L, Weishaupt, MA 2007. Validation of vertical ground reaction forces on individual limbs calculated from kinematics of horse locomotion. Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 1885–1896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonde, M, Rousing, T, Badsberg, JH, Sørensen, JT 2004. Associations between lying-down behaviour problems and body condition, limb disorders and skin lesions of lactating sows housed in farrowing crates in commercial sow herds. Livestock Production Science 87, 179–187.Google Scholar
Buddle, JR, Madec, F, Fourichon, C 1994a. Investigations préliminaires sur les méthodes d'appréciation des troubles locomoteurs chez la truie. Recueil de Médecine Vétérinaire 170, 29–36.Google Scholar
Buddle, JR, Madec, F, Fourichon, C 1994b. Recherche de méthodes de mesure des troubles locomoteurs chez la truie, travaux préliminaires. Recueil de Médecine Vétérinaire 170, 223–229.Google Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care 2009. Guidelines on the care and use of farm animals in research, teaching and testing. CCAC, Ottawa, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
Cariolet, R, Dantzer, R 1984. Motor activity of pregnant tethered sows. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 15, 257–261.Google Scholar
Ceballos, A, Sanderson, D, Rushen, J, Weary, DM 2004. Improving stall design: use of 3-d kinematics to measure space use by dairy cows when lying down. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 2042–2050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapinal, N, de Passillé, AM, Rushen, J, Wagner, SA 2010. Effect of analgesia during hoof trimming on gait, weight distribution, and activity of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 3039–3046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapinal, N, de Passillé, AM, Weary, DM, Von Keyserlingk, MAG, Rushen, J 2009. Using gait score, walking speed, and lying behavior to detect hoof lesions in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 4365–4374.Google Scholar
D'Allaire, S, Drolet, R 2006. Longevity in breeding animals. In Diseases of swine (ed. BE Straw, DR Zimmerman, S D'Allaire and DJ Taylor), pp. 1011–1025. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
D'Allaire, S, Stein, TE, Leman, AD 1987. Culling patterns in selected Minnesota swine breeding herds. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 51, 506–512.Google ScholarPubMed
Carvalho, VC, de Alencar Nääs, I, Mollo Neto, M, Souza, SRLD 2009. Measurement of pig claw pressure distribution. Biosystems Engineering 103, 357–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, CE, Friendship, RM, Wilson, MR 1993. Clinical and postmortem examination of sows culled for lameness. Canadian Veterinary Journal 34, 555–556.Google ScholarPubMed
Drevemo, S, Fredricson, I, Dalin, G, Björne, K 1980. Equine locomotion: 2. The analysis of coordination between limbs of trotting standardbreds. Equine Veterinary Journal 12, 66–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flower, FC, Sanderson, DJ, Weary, DM 2005. Hoof pathologies influence kinematic measures of dairy cow gait. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 3166–3173.Google Scholar
Gjein, H, Larssen, RB 1995. Housing of pregnant sows in loose and confined systems – a field study. 3. The impact of housing factors on claw lesions. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 36, 443–450.Google Scholar
Keegan, KG, Wilson, DA, Smith, BK, Wilson, DJ 2000. Changes in kinematic variables observed during pressure-induced forelimb lameness in adult horses trotting on a treadmill. American Journal of Veterinary Research 61, 612–619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keegan, KG, Yonezawa, Y, Pai, PF, Wilson, DA 2002. Accelerometer-based system for the detection of lameness in horses. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 38, 107–112.Google ScholarPubMed
Klapdor, K, Dulfer, BG, Hammann, A, Van Der Staay, FJ 1997. A low-cost method to analyse footprint patterns. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 75, 49–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larochelle, M 1999. La séléction en fonction des membres et des tétines. Centre de Développement du Porc du Québec Inc., Québec, QC, Canada.Google Scholar
Main, DCJ, Clegg, J, Spatz, A, Green, LE 2000. Repeatability of a lameness scoring system for finishing pigs. Veterinary Record 147, 574–576.Google Scholar
O'Callaghan, KA, Cripps, PJ, Downham, DY, Murray, RD 2003. Subjective and objective assessment of pain and discomfort due to lameness in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 12, 605–610.Google Scholar
Pastell, M, Tiusanen, J, Hakojärvi, M, Hänninen, L 2009. A wireless accelerometer system with wavelet analysis for assessing lameness in cattle. Biosystems Engineering 104, 545–551.Google Scholar
Pastell, M, Hänninen, L, de Passillé, AM, Rushen, J 2010. Measures of weight distribution of dairy cows to detect lameness and the presence of hoof lesions. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 954–960.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pastell, M, Kujala, M, Aisla, A-M, Hautala, M, Poikalainen, V, Praks, J, Veermäe, I, Ahokas, J 2008. Detecting cow's lameness using force sensors. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 64, 34–38.Google Scholar
Poursaberi, A, Bahr, C, Pluk, A, Van Nuffel, A, Berckmans, D 2010. Real-time automatic lameness detection based on back posture extraction in dairy cattle: shape analysis of cow with image processing techniques. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 74, 110–119.Google Scholar
Ringgenberg, N, Bergeron, R, Devillers, N 2010. Validation of accelerometers to automatically record sow postures and stepping behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 128, 37–44.Google Scholar
Rowles, C 2001. Sow lameness. Journal of Swine Health and Production 9, 130–131.Google Scholar
SAS 2002. Statistical analysis system, release 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Sheets, L, Hassanein, RS, Norton, S 1987. Gait analysis of chicks following treatment with tri-ortho-cresyl phosphate in ovo. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 21, 445–453.Google Scholar
Sprecher, DJ, Hostetler, DE, Kaneene, JB 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47, 1179–1187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorup, VM, Laursen, B, Jensen, BR 2008. Net joint kinetics in the limbs of pigs walking on concrete floor in dry and contaminated conditions. Journal of Animal Science 86, 992–998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Der Tol, PPJ, Metz, JHM, Noordhuizen-Stassen, EN, Back, W, Braam, CR, Weijs, WA 2003. The vertical ground reaction force and the pressure distribution on the claws of dairy cows while walking on a flat substrate. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2875–2883.Google Scholar
von Wachenfelt, H, Pinzke, S, Nilsson, C 2009. Gait and force analysis of provoked pig gait on clean and fouled concrete surfaces. Biosystems Engineering 104, 534–544.Google Scholar
Walker, SL, Smith, RF, Routly, JE, Jones, DN, Morris, MJ, Dobson, H 2008. Lameness, activity time-budgets, and estrus expression in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4552–4559.Google Scholar
Wells, GAH 1984. Locomotor disorders of the pig. In Practice 6, 43–53.Google Scholar
Whay, HR, Waterman, AE, Webster, AJF 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. Veterinary Journal 154, 155–161.Google Scholar