Findings from a survey of farm businesses in the north of

England on BVD and lameness

Authors: N Mahon and B Clark

February 2020

Executive summaryThis report focuses on two endemic livestock diseases in the UK: Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (BVD) in cattle and lameness in cattle and sheep. In order to explore how these conditions are managed on farms, a survey was conducted with 42 farmers across the north of England. The survey explored; disease concerns; sources of information on livestock health and welfare; enablers and motivations for BVD testing and vaccination; and practices used to control and prevent lameness.

Most participants were male and between 50-59 years of age. Two thirds farmed the land their family farmed before them. Farm sizes varied from 20.1-50 hectares to over 200 hectares. Most respondents purchased few livestock. For beef cattle, most purchases came from markets or other farms. For dairy cattle, purchases were from other farms. For sheep, purchases were mainly from markets.

Farmers were asked to list their three greatest disease concerns currently, in the past and in the future. For beef cattle, several diseases appeared to be persistent concerns across all categories. For dairy, concerns were more varied. For sheep, many diseases related to lameness and abortion concerns.

All respondents were active in sharing their knowledge with vets, family members, other farmers and employees. The most commonly discussed topics included disease prevention strategies, treating ill animals, and identifying livestock disease. The majority considered the vet the most important source of information on health and welfare topics.

Most keepers of beef cattle had never had BVD before, however, just over a quarter either currently have BVD or had it in the past. For dairy farms, the majority had experiences of BVD. Most participants perceived it to be a risk to their income, however, none were extremely worried about the disease. Almost half of the respondents currently test for BVD, with a further quarter having never tested. Herd testing was more common than individual testing. The main reason for testing was the advice of their vet. The main reason for not testing was that they had no reason to suspect that the disease was present. Over half of the respondents who kept cattle vaccinate them against BVD. The main reason for doing so was on the advice of their vet. Reasons for not vaccinating included not being concerned about the disease, keeping a closed herd, and resource constraints (e.g., time, space and cost). In order to prevent and mange BVD, many respondents mentioned the development of herd health plans, with vaccination also commonly practiced. Few farmers were considering taking additional measures against BVD.

Self-reported lameness prevalence varied across farms and livestock types. For the non-indoor dairy systems, all reported either similar or lower levels of lameness when animals were outdoors. The pattern was similar for beef with only one farm reporting higher lameness rates when cattle were outdoors. For sheep, it was much more mixed, with there being a range of farms having higher lameness rates outdoors compared to indoors. Most beef farmers were not worried about lameness and perceived it to have little or no risk to their income. Dairy farmers were more concerned, with over half quite or extremely worried and the majority perceiving it to be a risk to their income. Sheep farmers were only slightly worried and perceived it to be little risk. There was no one measure that all farms used to control lameness. The most common practices were treatment of affected animals with antibiotics, use of footbaths, and culling. For those that used footbaths, frequencies of use ranged from a couple of times a day (indoor dairy), to as required (beef and sheep farm).

Findings indicate that farmers in the north of England use a range of approaches for production disease management and have had a range of different experiences with BVD and lameness. These findings are being explored in more detail using series of in-depth interviews and farm walks.

The FIELD ProjectFIELD (Farm-level, Interdisciplinary approaches to Endemic Livestock Disease) is a four-year

interdisciplinary project funded by the Wellcome Trust (2018-2022). It brings together a team of

social scientists, historians, economists and epidemiologists to research how livestock disease is

influenced by nature and culture, science and society, humans and livestock. The 13-strong team of

experts from six UK universities (the universities of Lincoln, Hull, Leeds Trinity, Newcastle, Edinburgh

and Glasgow) is collaborating to work out the past and present effects of two exemplar endemic

livestock conditions, Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (BVD) in cattle and lameness in sheep and cattle, and

how they relate to changes in farming systems, communities, and the wider world. These insights

will be used to develop better predictions of disease in the future, and to advise on its management.

1.0 Introduction1.1 BackgroundBetter ways of understanding and managing livestock diseases are urgently required. These diseases compromise the health and welfare of livestock, negatively affecting the profitability of farms, increasing the environmental footprint of agriculture, and affecting the quality of livestock products.

Endemic livestock diseases are commonly occurring diseases in animals in a given region, e.g. the UK. They differ from epidemic diseases (e.g., foot and mouth disease) which are caused by new infections from outside the farm (Perry et al., 2013). Although similarities exist, the prevention, consequences and management of different endemic diseases will vary. This research focuses on two common endemic livestock diseases in the UK: Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (BVD) in cattle and lameness in cattle and sheep.

Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (BVD) is a viral disease of ruminant species (Bitsch et al., 2000). In cattle, BVD typically leads to a reduction in reproductive performance and a compromised immune system (Lanyon et al., 2014, Scott, 2012). This leads to other health problems, especially in young animals, e.g., pneumonia, mucosal disease, and a lowering of productivity and reproductive performance. BVD is a well-understood disease, with numerous, recorded strains. It is comparatively simple to detect, and several reliable diagnostic tests exist (Lindberg et al., 2006).

Lameness is any abnormality which causes an animal to change the way they walk or stand (Kaler et al., 2009, AHDB, 2018b). It can be caused by disease, management, or environmental and physical factors (AHDB, 2018a). Lameness is also a welfare issue and causes livestock pain (AHDB, 2018b). Lameness is common problem thought to effect over 90% sheep herds (O’Kane et al., 2017) and between 50-70 per 100 dairy cows per year (NADIS, 2008). Little is known about lameness in beef cattle (Animal Welfare Foundation, 2016).

1.2 MethodIn order to explore how BVD and lameness are managed on farms, a survey was conducted with 42 farmers across the north of England (Northumberland, Cumbria, County Durham and, Tyne and Wear). The survey explored:

1. The main disease concerns farmers have and how have these changed over time; 2. The sources of information and advice used by farmers to manage disease; 3. The enablers and motivations for BVD testing and vaccination; 4. The practices used to control and prevent lameness.

The survey was split into four parts: background information about the farm and the livestock kept; general disease concerns and sources of information; BVD management (including testing and vaccination strategies), and; lameness concerns and management strategies. For farms that only kept sheep, responses to the BVD questions were not required. The survey was administered by the Farm Business Survey Unit at Newcastle University on behalf of the FIELD project.

2.0 Results2.1 Overview of the sampleThe majority of participants were male (37 respondents, 90.5% of the sample). Most were between 50-59 years of age (19 respondents, 45.2% of the sample), just under one third (12 respondents) were over 59 years old, and a smaller proportion were younger than 50 (11 respondents).

Two thirds of those who participated farmed the land their family farmed before them (28 respondents), a smaller proportion had family who farmed elsewhere before coming to their current farm (eight respondents, 19%), few were first generation farmers (six respondents, 14.3%).

Most participants (76.2%) were part of an Environmental Stewardship scheme (either entry or higher level) and seven respondents farmed organically. Farm sizes varied from two farms of between 20.1-50 hectares (4.8% of the sample) to 13 farms of over 200 hectares (42.9% of the sample).

Over one-half of farms kept more than one type of livestock, with the most common combination being beef and sheep (table 1). Farms predominantly kept commercial breeds, or a combination of commercial and pedigree, with only dairy herds having entirely pedigree herds. For farms where both types of livestock were kept, the pedigree animals were often breeding stock.

Table 1 Livestock breakdownType Numbers (%age)Beef 1 (2.4%)Dairy 12 (28.6%)Sheep 2 (4.8%)Beef and sheep 22 (52.3%)Dairy and sheep 2 (4.8%)Dairy and beef 1 (2.4%)Dairy, beef and sheep 2 (4.8%)

When purchasing new livestock, the source and frequency varied across livestock types, with most farms purchasing no or few livestock. For beef cattle, most purchases came from markets or directly from other farms. For dairy cattle, all purchases were made directly from other farms. The market was the main point of purchase for sheep.

2.2. Livestock health and disease concerns Farmers were asked to list their three greatest disease concerns currently, in the past and in the future (participants were not aware of the focus of this research on BVD and lameness prior to answering this question). The top three responses are listed in tables 2, 3 and 4. For beef cattle, several diseases appeared to be persistent disease concerns across all categories. For dairy, concerns were more varied. For sheep, there was many diseases listed with lameness and abortion related conditions being mentioned consistently. For all livestock types, there were fewer responses for the future, perhaps due to it being difficult to predict what may happen in relation to disease.

Table 2. Top 3 past, present and future disease concerns of beef cattle farmersPresent Concerns Past concerns Future concerns

BVD 13 (28.9%) BVD 7 (16.7%) TB 10 (28.6%)Johnes 11 (24.4%) Johnes 7 (16.7%) Johnes 7 (20.0%)TB 5 (11.1%) Foot & Mouth 4 (9.5%) BVD 6 (17.1%)

Table 3. Top 3 past, present and future disease concerns of dairy cattle farmersPresent concerns Past concerns Future concerns

Johnes 7 (18.0%) Mastitis 5 (13.9%) TB 11 (35.5%)Lameness 7 (18.0%) Lameness 4 (11.1%) Johnes 6 (19.4%)BVD 6 (15.4%) Leptospirosis 4 (11.1%) BVD 4 (12.9%)

Table 4. Top 3 past, present and future concerns of sheep farmersPresent concerns Past concerns Future concerns

Abortion 7 (13.2%) Abortion 11 (21.6%) Lameness 5 (12.0%)Lameness 7 (13.2%) Foot and Mouth 6 (11.8%) Abortion 3 (7.1%)Fluke 4 (7.6%) Blue tongue 5 (9.8%) Antibiotic resistance 3 (7.1%)

Values in the table given as frequency counts and %ages of the total responses %ages do not add up to 100% due to rounding.

For most farms, the person responsible for checking the livestock for health and disease most regularly was the farmer, with nearly all beef and sheep farmers doing this. Vets were the next most common person to check livestock, although the regularity of this varied. Family members were also involved in half of the farms. For dairy farms, employees were more likely to check the animals than on other farms. Dairy farms were also more likely to have other advisors check herds for health and disease reasons.

All the respondents were active in sharing their knowledge. Vets, family members, other farmers and employees were the most commonly mentioned individuals with whom information was shared. The most commonly discussed topics included disease prevention strategies, how to treat ill animals, and how to identify the presence of livestock disease.

In terms of where the respondents received information about livestock disease, the most important source by far was the vet, who was considered to be a very useful source. The vet was followed by other farmers, farming publications, feedback from slaughterhouses and milk recording.

2.3 Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (BVD)Experience of BVDMost keepers of beef cattle (15 respondents, 60% of those that kept beef cattle) had never had BVD before, just over a quarter of those that kept beef cattle either currently have BVD or had it in the past (seven respondents). For dairy farms, the majority have had experiences of BVD (11 respondents, 65% of those that kept dairy cattle). Most participants perceived BVD to pose either high or some risk to their income. However, none of the farmers were extremely worried about BVD. More beef farmers worried about the disease than dairy farmers.

BVD testingAlmost half of the respondents in the survey currently test for BVD (47.5%, 19 respondents). However, a quarter have never tested their herd for BVD.

Given the variety of BVD tests (e.g., antibody or antigen tests, herd or individual animal tests, tests on milk, blood or tissue samples), farmers were asked whether they conduct individual or herd testing. Herd testing would appear to be much more commonly conducted than individual testing. Of those that test individual animals, only five had ever had a positive result. Despite this almost a third of respondents indicated that their past experiences of BVD had no influence on their current attitude to testing.

For those farmers that test for BVD, the main reason for starting to test was the advice of their vet. Just under a quarter of farmers started testing because they suspected BVD was present in their herd. Other reasons for testing included: testing as part of ‘good practice’, curiosity on the part of the farmer, to ensure peace of mind, and for market reasons

The main reason farmers did not currently test for BVD was that they had no reason to suspect that BVD was present in their herds. When asked what would induce them to test for BVD in the future,

respondents mentioned suspecting the disease was present in their herd, or if testing was offered for free by a vet.

BVD vaccinatingOver half of the respondents who kept cattle (68%) in the survey vaccinate their cattle against BVD. Most respondents either vaccinated all their calves or none, with only two of the respondents vaccinating a small percentage of their herd (e.g., just replacement animals).

Farmers were asked what the main reason was for first vaccinating against BVD. The most frequently mentioned responses were on the advice of a vet, and because the respondent suspected BVD might be present on their farm. Other reasons less frequently mentioned included: concern over the impacts of an outbreak; BVD being present in the local area; and vaccinating indirectly via Rispoval (a pneumonia vaccine).

Reasons for not currently vaccinating included not being concerned about the disease, keeping a closed herd, and resource constraints (e.g., time, space and cost). When asked what would lead them to vaccinate their livestock, responses indicated that they would vaccinate if BVD was present on their farm, or in the neighbouring area or suppliers’ herds.

Risk and purchasing behaviourAll respondents were asked about the risk of introducing BVD into their farm from various sources. Purchasing cattle was seen as risky, with buying directly from a dealer as the highest level of risk and buying directly from farms as having a lower perceived level of risk. Little agreement was seen in the respondents’ responses to the perceived level of risk from contact with neighbouring herds of cattle. Most farmers had not heard about BVD on other farms with several respondents commenting that this type of information is not usually discussed between farmers.

Practices to manage BVDFarmers were asked which measures they use to prevent and manage BVD on their farms. The development of a herd health plan was the most frequently done (81%, 34 respondents) and was of importance to both dairy and beef farmers. This demonstrates the importance of the relationship between the vet and the farmer and supports earlier findings regarding the key role of the vet as a source of advice and education in regards to disease management.

When comparing beef and dairy farmers there were slight differences in relation to the most commonly used measures. The development of herd health plans in conjunction with a vet was the most commonly mentioned practice by dairy farmers whereas vaccination was most commonly mentioned by beef farmers.

Practices mentioned infrequently, or not mentioned by any of the respondents often related to the use of antibiotics and changes to farm infrastructure.

Very few farmers were considering taking additional measures against BVD, with commonly cited measures considered including, sending samples to a laboratory for testing, vaccination of livestock and membership of a disease control scheme.

2.4 LamenessExperience of lamenessThe range of estimated lameness prevalence varied across farms and livestock type (see table 5). For the non-indoor dairy systems, all reported either similar or lower levels of lameness when animals were outdoors, with the average difference being 5%. The pattern was similar for beef with only one farm reporting higher lameness rates when cattle were outdoors (1%), with the average change

being 3% lower when animals were housed outdoors. For sheep, it was much more mixed, with there being a range of farms having higher lameness rates outdoors compared to indoors (average 2% lower outdoors).

Table 5: Range of lameness prevalence reported across beef, dairy and sheep systemsBeef Dairy Sheep

Indoor (n=24)

Outdoor(n=25)

Indoor(n=17)

Outdoor(n=13)

Indoor(n=21)

Outdoor(n=28)

≤1% 7 (29.1%) 13 (52.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (14.3%) 4 (14.3%)>1 - ≤3% 9 (37.5%) 8 (32.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (23.1%) 2 (9.5%) 4 (14.3%)>3-5% 3 (12.5%) 3 (12.0%) 5 (29.4%) 6 (46.2%) 7 (33.3%) 10 (35.7%)5-10% 3 (12.5%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (17.6%) 2 (15.4%) 2 (9.5%) 7 (25.0%)>10 - 15% 1 (4.2%) 1 (4.0%) 1 (5.9%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (14.3%) 1 3.6%)>15-20% 0 (0.0% 0 (0.0%) 8 (47.1%) 2 (15.4%) 3 (14.3%) 2 (7.1%)>20% 1 (4.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (4.8%) 0 (0.0%) Minimum 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%Maximum 30% 15% 20% 20% 30% 20%

Concern over lamenessMost beef farmers were not worried about lameness on their farms (61.5%) and perceived it to have little or no risk to their income (69.2%). Dairy farmers would appear to be the most concerned about lameness with over half quite or extremely worried (58.9%) with the majority perceiving it to be very or somewhat risky to their income (88.3%). Sheep farmers were more varied in their response, with the most common response being slightly worried (39.3%). In relation to perceived risk to income, most sheep farmers perceived that lameness presents some or little risk. (78.6%).

Practices used to manage lamenessThere was no one measure that all farms used to control lameness, with the most common related to commonly recommended management practices. Three measures were used by over three quarters of all farmers: individual treatment of affected animals with antibiotics, use of footbaths and culling of affected animals. For those that used foot baths (76.2%), a range of different frequencies were used, ranging from a couple of times a day (indoor dairy), several times a week (dairy), when housed indoors (sheep), to as required (beef and sheep farm). There appears to be no relation between the frequency of footbaths used and lameness prevalence for any of the livestock types.

Additional notes were made surrounding the measures used on several surveys. Across all farm types, the vet was the most frequent other stakeholder mentioned, being important for checking livestock, assessing them for lameness, or providing advice on when or when not to trim feet. Breeding also received additional comments, such as choosing not to breed from stock that are persistently lame, and that lameness on farm was due to environmental and not genetic factors (due to the breeding strategies used). For sheep, it was commented that it is very difficult to purchase animals of a known health status.

When asked about the barriers to implementing measures to manage lameness, only 20 respondents listed answers, with the remaining 21 either having no plans, no perceived barriers, feeling further action isn’t necessary, leaving the question blank (n=13). The most frequently cited barriers included time and money considerations, with only seven not stating this. Several participants mentioned multiple reasons for not enacting different preferences, especially in beef and sheep farms. For dairy farms, funds were also mentioned, including specific mentions relating to the costs of introducing structural changes such as new flooring and tracks.

3.0 Conclusions and next steps in the researchThe survey findings indicate that farmers in the north of England take a range of different approaches to production disease management and have had a range of different experiences with the two example conditions: BVD and lameness. In order to explore these in more detail, the team are in the process of conducting a series of in-depth interviews and focus groups with farmers in the north of England.

If you have any questions or comments about the findings, or would like more information about the findings, please contact Niamh Mahon (n.mahon@hull.ac.uk).

To find out more about the FIELD project and the activities you can get involved please visit our website (https://field-wt.co.uk/), or contact Niamh Mahon or Beth Clark (beth.clark@newcastle.ac.uk) directly.

4.0 ReferencesAHDB. 2018a. Healthy Feet Programme [Online]. Available: https://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/technical-services/healthy-feet-programme/#.W6Jb-oVKhaQ [Accessed 19th September 2018].

AHDB. 2018b. Lameness [Online]. Available: https://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/technical-information/animal-health-welfare/lameness/#.W6JbmoVKhaQ [Accessed 19th September 2018].

ANIMAL WELFARE FOUNDATION. 2016. Lameness in beef cattle: establishing a knowledge base [Online]. Available: https://www.animalwelfarefoundation.org.uk/grant/lameness-beef-cattle-establishing-knowledge-base/ [Accessed 9th October 2018].

BITSCH, V., HANSEN, K.-E. & RØNSHOLT, L. 2000. Experiences from the Danish programme for eradication of bovine virus diarrhoea (BVD) 1994–1998 with special reference to legislation and causes of infection. Veterinary Microbiology, 77, 137-143.

KALER, J., WASSINK, G. J. & GREEN, L. E. 2009. The inter-and intra-observer reliability of a locomotion scoring scale for sheep. The Veterinary Journal, 180, 189-194.

LANYON, S. R., HILL, F. I., REICHEL, M. P. & BROWNLIE, J. 2014. Bovine viral diarrhoea: pathogenesis and diagnosis. The Veterinary Journal, 199, 201-209.

LINDBERG, A., BROWNLIE, J., GUNN, G., HOUE, H., MOENING, V., SAATKAMP, H., SANDVIK, T. & VALLE, P. 2006. The control of bovine viral diarrhoea virus in Europe: today and in the future. Plurithematic issue of the Scientific and technical review, 2006.

NADIS. 2008. Lameness control in dairy herds [Online]. Available: http://www.nadis.org.uk/disease-a-z/cattle/lameness-control-in-dairy-herds/part-1-practical-foot-trimming-dutch-5-step-method/ [Accessed 9th October 2018].

O’KANE, H., FERGUSON, E., KALER, J. & GREEN, L. 2017. Associations between sheep farmer attitudes, beliefs, emotions and personality, and their barriers to uptake of best practice: The example of footrot. Preventive veterinary medicine, 139, 123-133.

PERRY, B. D., GRACE, D. & SONES, K. 2013. Current drivers and future directions of global livestock disease dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 20871-20877.

SCOTT, P. 2012. Bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) [Online]. Available: https://www.nadis.org.uk/disease-a-z/cattle/bovine-viral-diarrhoea-bvd/ [Accessed 17th February 2020].