| Literature DB >> 26063337 |
Emmanuel Jolaoluwa Awosanya1,2, Babasola Olugasa3, Gabriel Ogundipe4, Yrjo Tapio Grohn5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: African swine fever (ASF) is one of the major setbacks to development of the pig industry in Nigeria. It is enzootic in southwest Nigeria. We determined the sero-prevalence and factors associated with ASF among-herd seropositivity in 144 pig farms in six States from southwest Nigeria during the dry and rainy seasons using indirect Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) for ASF IgG antibodies. An interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to collect information on demography, environmental and management factors. We performed descriptive statistics, and univariate and multivariable analyses to determine the among-herd sero-prevalence of ASF and its associated factors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26063337 PMCID: PMC4464725 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-015-0444-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Factors associated with pig herd level African swine fever seropositivity of 144 pig herds in southwest Nigeria, 2013
| Variables | Seropositive n = 40 (%) | Seronegative n = 104 (%) | OR (95 % CI)a | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State Location | ||||
| Lagos | 4 (10) | 27 (26) | Ref | |
| Ondo | 4 (10) | 16 (15) | 1.7 (0.3; 10.3) | 0.76 |
| Ekiti | 4 (10) | 13 (12.5) | 2.1 (0.3; 12.9) | 0.58 |
| Osun | 5 (12.5) | 19 (18) | 1.8 (0.3; 10.1) | 0.67 |
| Oyo | 6 (15) | 16 (15) | 2.5 (0.5; 13.9) | 0.34 |
| Ogun | 17 (42.5) | 13 (12.5) | 8.8 (2.2; 41.8) | 0.001 |
| Total No. of pigs on farm | ||||
| Large holder farms (101 – 567) | 7 (17.5) | 19 (18) | Ref | |
| Medium holder farms (51 – 100) | 8 (20) | 30 (29) | 0.7 (0.2; 2.8) | 0.80 |
| Small holder farms (<= 50) | 25 (62.5) | 55 (53) | 1.2 (0.4; 3.9) | 0.88 |
| Season | ||||
| Dry | 21 (52.5) | 18 (17) | 5.3 (2.2; 12.7) | 0.00 |
| Rainy | 19 (47.5) | 86 (83) | ||
| Having slaughter slabs within 1 km radius of the farm | ||||
| Yes | 5 (12.5) | 23 (22) | 0.5 (0.1; 1.5) | 0.28 |
| No | 35 (87.5) | 81 (78) | ||
| Having rubbish heap within 1 km radius of the farm | ||||
| Yes | 29 (72.5) | 64 (61.5) | 1.6 (0.7; 4.1) | 0.30 |
| No | 11 (27.5) | 40 (38.5) | ||
| Having a quarantine/isolation unit within 100 m radius of the regular pen | ||||
| Yes | 13 (32.5) | 13 (12.5) | 3.3 (1.3; 8.9) | 0.01 |
| No | 27 (67.5) | 91 (87.5) | ||
| Farm workers having designated working clothes | ||||
| Yes | 28 (70) | 85 (82) | 0.5 (0.2; 1.3) | 0.19 |
| No | 12 (30) | 19 (18) | ||
| Taking of shower/bath at work | ||||
| Yes | 26 (65) | 52 (50) | 1.9 (0.8; 4.3) | 0.15 |
| No | 14 (35) | 52 (50) | ||
| Lending out of service boars | ||||
| Yes | 8 (20) | 33 (32) | 0.5 (0.2; 1.4) | 0.23 |
| No | 32 (80) | 71 (68) | ||
| Daily cleaning of pen floor | ||||
| Yes | 36 (90) | 95 (91) | 0.9 (0.2; 4.0) | 1.00 |
| No | 4 (10) | 9 (19) | ||
| Daily disinfection of pen floor | ||||
| Yes | 8 (20) | 25 (24) | 0.8 (0.3; 2.1) | 0.78 |
| No | 32 (80) | 79 (76) | ||
| Daily cleaning of working utensils | ||||
| Yes | 28 (70) | 71 (68) | 1.1 (0.4; 2.6) | 1.00 |
| No | 12 (30) | 33 (32) | ||
| Daily disinfection of working utensils | ||||
| Yes | 9 (22.5) | 21 (20) | 1.1 (0.4; 3.0) | 0.92 |
| No | 31 (77.5) | 83 (80) | ||
| Snacking or eating while working | ||||
| Yes | 10 (25) | 19 (18) | 1.5 (0.6; 3.8) | 0.50 |
| No | 30 (75) | 85 (82) | ||
| Wearing of work clothes outside of farm | ||||
| Yes | 8 (20) | 15 (14) | 1.5 (0.5; 4.2) | 0.56 |
| No | 32 (80) | 89 (86) | ||
| Source of replacement stock | ||||
| External source | 31 (62.5) | 54 (52) | 3.2 (1.3; 8.3) | 0.01 |
| Internal source | 9 (37.5) | 50 (48) | ||
| Feeding of swill | ||||
| Yes | 22 (55) | 59 (57) | 0.9 (0.4; 2.1) | 1.00 |
| No | 18 (45) | 45 (43) | ||
| Having carcass disposal or burying site within 1 km radius of farm | ||||
| Yes | 27 (67.5) | 59 (57) | 1.6 (0.7; 3.7) | 0.32 |
| No | 13 (32.5) | 45 (43) | ||
| Presence of nearby pig farms (within 1 km radius) | ||||
| Yes | 21 (52.5) | 59 (57) | 0.8 (0.4; 1.9) | 0.79 |
| No | 19 (47.5) | 45 (43) | ||
| Sharing of farm workers among fellow farmers | ||||
| Yes | 4 (10) | 13 (12.5) | 0.8 (0.2; 2.8) | 0.93 |
| No | 36 (90) | 91 (87.5) | ||
| Sharing of working utensils among fellow farmers | ||||
| Yes | 3 (7.5) | 5 (5) | 1.6 (0.2; 8.7) | 0.78 |
| No | 37 (92.5) | 99 (95) | ||
| Farm workers having a designated work footwear | ||||
| Yes | 27 (67.5) | 77 (74) | 0.7 (0.3; 1.8) | 0.56 |
| No | 13 (32.5) | 27 (26) |
aOdds ratio (95 % Confidence interval)
Unconditional Logistic Regression of factors associated with African swine fever seropositivity of 144 pig herds with herd size as a continuous variable in southwest Nigeria, 2013
| Variables | DF | β | Standard Error | Wald Chi-Square | ORb | 95% Wald CIc | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 1 | −1.60 | 0.51 | 9.98 | 0.00 | ||
| aSeason (Dry/Rainy) | 1 | 0.58 | 0.59 | 0.96 | 0.33 | ||
| Source (External/Internal) | 1 | 0.98 | 0.47 | 4.38 | 2.7 | 1.1; 6.7 | 0.04 |
| aHerd size | 1 | −0.01 | 0.01 | 2.61 | 0.11 | ||
| Season*Herd size | 1 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 4.22 | 0.04 |
aDue to interactions between season of the year and herd size, odds ratio were not expressed because they depend on the individual value of both variables
bOdds ratio
cConfidence interval
*Interaction term
Fig. 1The risk of African swine fever (ASF) seropositivity in dry and wet seasons in 144 pig herds with external and internal source of replacement stock in southwest Nigeria, 2013. The risk is calculated based on the logistic regression model in Table 2. The risk of ASF seropositivity was always higher in the dry than in the rainy season and in farms with an external source of replacement stock than an internal source. The risk decreased faster in the dry season with increasing herd size in farms with an internal source of replacement stock. The risk also increased faster in the rainy season with increasing herd size in farms with an external source of replacement stock
Fig. 2Geographical spread of 144 pig herds surveyed for African swine fever (ASF) seropositivity in southwest Nigeria in 2013. Random distribution of the pig herds is shown