Table 4.
Treatment of lambs latent class model | Treatment of ewes latent class model | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Latent class | GM prevalence of foot lesions in ewes | BH-adjusted p | GM prevalence of foot lesions in ewes | BH-adjusted p | ||||
LC2 | LC3 | LC4 | LC2 | LC3 | LC4 | |||
Interdigital dermatitis | ||||||||
LC1 | 1.09 (0.54–2.18)a | 0.18 | 0.03 | 0.18 | 1.06 (0.48–2.34)a | 0.03 | 0.22 | 0.01 |
LC2 | 2.65 (1.82–3.85)ab | – | 0.31 | 0.78 | 4.01 (3.02–5.32)bc | – | 0.18 | 0.79 |
LC3 | 3.92 (3.06–5.02)b | – | 0.20 | 1.84 (1.18–2.87)ab | – | 0.04 | ||
LC4 | 3.52 (2.77–4.47)ab | – | 3.54 (2.93–4.27)c | – | ||||
Severe footrot | ||||||||
LC1 | 0.47 (0.21–1.03)a | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.64 | 0.51 (0.21–1.24)a | 0.28 | 0.04 | 0.09 |
LC2 | 1.09 (0.68–1.73)a | – | 0.82 | 0.64 | 0.98 (0.56–1.72)ab | – | 0.09 | 0.34 |
LC3 | 1.19 (0.80–1.79)a | – | 0.68 | 1.15 (0.71–1.89)b | – | 0.18 | ||
LC4 | 0.89 (0.56–1.42)a | – | 0.95 (0.69–1.30)ab | – | ||||
Contagious ovine digital dermatitis | ||||||||
LC1 | 0.01 (0.00–0.03)a | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.32 | 0.02 (0.01–0.07)ab | 0.61 | 0.17 | 0.12 |
LC2 | 0.05 (0.02–0.09)ab | – | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.01 (0.00–0.02)b | – | 0.04 | 0.02 |
LC3 | 0.06 (0.03–0.11)b | – | 0.10 | 0.04 (0.02–0.08)a | – | 0.94 | ||
LC4 | 0.03 (0.01–0.05)ab | – | 0.04 (0.03–0.06)a | – | ||||
Shelly hoof | ||||||||
LC1 | 0.03 (0.01–0.10)a | 0.30 | 0.18 | 0.30 | 0.06 (0.02–0.18)a | 0.70 | 0.26 | 0.26 |
LC2 | 0.11 (0.05–0.22)a | – | 0.30 | 0.81 | 0.05 (0.02–0.14)a | – | 0.26 | 0.35 |
LC3 | 0.13 (0.07–0.27)a | – | 0.33 | 0.11 (0.05–0.27)a | – | 0.60 | ||
LC4 | 0.10 (0.05–0.21)a | – | 0.08 (0.05–0.14)a | – |
GM, geometric mean; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval (lower, upper); BH, Benjamini–Hochberg. Where superscripts (a, b, c) differ across rows, prevalence of lesion or lameness differs (BH-adjusted Wilcoxon p ≤ 0.05) between latent classes.