Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Reliability of a beef cattle locomotion scoring system for use in clinical practice
  1. Jay Tunstall,
  2. Karin Mueller,
  3. Oscar Sinfield and
  4. Helen Mary Higgins
  1. Department of Livestock and One Health, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Cheshire, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Helen Mary Higgins, Department of Livestock and One Health, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Cheshire, UK; h.higgins{at}liverpool.ac.uk

Abstract

Background Locomotion (lameness) scoring has been used and studied in the dairy industry; however, to the authors’ knowledge, there are no studies assessing the reliability of locomotion scoring systems when used with beef cattle.

Methods A four-point scoring system was developed and beef cattle filmed walking on a firm surface. Eight veterinary researchers, eight clinicians and eight veterinary students were shown written descriptors of the scoring system and four video clips for training purposes, before being asked to score 40 video clips in a random order. Participants repeated this task 4 days later.

Results The intra-observer agreement (the same person scoring on different days) was acceptable with weighted mean Kappa values of 0.84, 0.81 and 0.84 respectively for researchers, clinicians and students. The inter-observer agreement (different people scoring the same animal) was acceptable with weighted Gwet’s Agreement Coefficient values of 0.70, 0.69 and 0.64 for researchers, clinicians and students. Most disagreement occurred over scores one (not lame but imperfect locomotion) and two (lame, but not severe).

Conclusion This scoring system has the potential to reliably score lameness in beef cattle and help facilitate lameness treatment and control; however, some disagreements will occur especially over scores one and two.

  • lameness
  • cattle
  • locomotion
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, an indication of whether changes were made, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding The authors would like to thank the Animal Welfare Foundation who funded this research under the Norman Hayward Fund (grant ref. NHF_2016_05_KM).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval University of Liverpool Ethics Committee (VREC533a).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Data are available on reasonable request. The videos created during this study are available on request.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.