Comparison of the inter- and intra-observer repeatability of three gait-scoring scales for sows

Abstract

Most gait-scoring scales for pigs have a limited number of categories, supposedly to improve repeatability. However, reducing the number of categories could lead to loss of information if the observers' discriminative capacities are underused. With a recently estimated withinherd prevalence of sow lameness of 8.8% to 16.9% in the European Union and the associated losses, the availability of reliable tools for the timely detection of initial cases warrants attention. This study investigated the intra-and inter-observer repeatability (intra-OR and inter-OR) of three gait-scoring scales for sows: a continuous 'tagged' visual analogue scale (tVAS, measured in mm), a 5-point and a 2-point ordinal scale (5P and 2P), all with the same descriptors. Veterinary medicine students (n = 108) were trained to use the scales and then asked to score 90 videos (30 per scale) of sows with normal and abnormal gait. Thirty-six videos were shown once and 18 were randomly shown three times, of which one mirrored horizontally. The students' opinions on the scales were also collected. Intra-and inter-OR were higher with the tVAS than the 2P scale (inter-OR: 0.73 v. 0.60; P < 0.05. Intra-OR: 0.80 v. 0.67; P < 0.05). Intra-OR was higher with the 5P (0.81) than the 2P scale (0.67; P < 0.05). For all three scales, repeatabilities were lower ( P < 0.05) for non-lame sows (gait score of ⩽45 mm on the tVAS) than for sows showing some signs of lameness (gait score > 45 mm). Video order (first 45 v. last 45 clips), mirroring, users' opinions on the scales, and previous declared experience in handling pigs or scoring lameness in other species had no effect on repeatabilities. Correlations between the students' and experts' scores were high (tVAS = 0.92; 5P = 0.91; 2P = 0.88) but the association for the 2P was not linear and the frequency distribution showed lower correlations for a group of students. This study confirms recent evidence that it is possible to design high-resolution gait-scoring scales that do not reduce observer repeatability. Visual gait-scoring scales with fewer than five categories are likely to entail loss of information on lameness in individual sows.

Effect of locomotion score on sows’ performances in a feed reward collection test

“…This suggests that sows with a gait score on the tVAS corresponding to moderately lame or severely lame (lame in at least one leg and showing compensatory behaviours) are limited in their locomotory behaviour. The results could be an indication that lameness is either absent or present, instead of present and evolving in different degrees of severity, as assumed in most gait scoring scales, including our tVAS (Main et al, 2000;Nalon et al, 2014).…”

“…However, there was no difference between non-lame and mildly lame sows (P = 0.69), or between moderately lame and severely lame sows (P = 1.00). Nalon et al, 2014). Explanation of scores.…”

“…To encourage the sows to move, a person walked beside them and used sound cues or waved as needed. Gait score was recorded by an experienced observer using the tagged visual analogue scale (tVAS) developed by Nalon et al (2014). The sows were categorised into five gait score classes: non-lame (0 to 30 mm on tVAS); mildly lame (30 to 60 mm on tVAS); moderately lame (60 to 90 mm on tVAS), severely lame (90 to 120 mm on tVAS); or extremely lame (120 to 150 mm on tVAS) (Figure 2).…”

“…The sows were categorised into five gait score classes: non-lame (0 to 30 mm on tVAS); mildly lame (30 to 60 mm on tVAS); moderately lame (60 to 90 mm on tVAS), severely lame (90 to 120 mm on tVAS); or extremely lame (120 to 150 mm on tVAS) (Figure 2). By using a tVAS with descriptors and different colour shades on the scale, observers are helped to use the total length of the 150-mm bar (Nalon et al, 2014).…”

“…The occurrence and severity of lameness can be determined by several methods such as visual inspection of the gait (Main et al, 2000;Nalon et al, 2014) and using kinematic techniques like pressure mats and accelerometers (Grégoire et al, 2013;Pluym et al, 2013b;Meijer et al, 2014). However, none of these methods directly evaluates the effects of lameness on the capability of locomotion.…”