| Literature DB >> 27818860 |
Birhanu Ayele1, Worku Tigre2, Benti Deressa2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blackleg is one of the major bacterial infections causing tremendous economic losses to cattle herders in many parts of Ethiopia. Despite the huge burden, no comprehensive studies have quantified the impact or its distribution throughout the country. This study was aimed to estimate the epidemiological aspect of blackleg, financial costs and benefits of its control through annual vaccination on small holder cattle herders in Southern Ethiopia.Entities:
Keywords: Blackleg; Cattle; Cumulative incidence; Financial benefit; Financial cost; Southern Ethiopia
Year: 2016 PMID: 27818860 PMCID: PMC5074928 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-3541-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Cattle population by sex and age groups in the study districts.
Source: Zone ARDO (2011)
| Sex, age categories | Name of the districts | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kedida Gamela | Damboya | Kacha Bira | Angecha | Sum | |
| Male | 39,905 | ||||
| Male calves (<1 year) | 1082 | 447 | 653 | 693 | 2875 |
| Bull (1–3 years) | 5119 | 6327 | 4909 | 11,772 | 28,127 |
| Draft oxen | 2489 | 1589 | 2902 | 1923 | 8903 |
| Female | 129,360 | ||||
| Female calves (<1 year) | 2383 | 720 | 1104 | 1253 | 5460 |
| Heifers (1–3 years) | 12,528 | 10,777 | 11,176 | 10,908 | 45,389 |
| Dry cows | 18,328 | 11,942 | 19,287 | 13,403 | 62,960 |
| Lactating cows | 7498 | 1361 | 4691 | 2001 | 15,551 |
| Total | 49,427 | 33,163 | 44,722 | 41,953 | 169,265 |
Among total cattle population, crossbred animals are 28,833
Among lactating cows, the number of crossbred is 2485
Among draft oxen, the number of crossbred is 2074
Number of cattle in the study population categorized by sex, age, and breed types based on the questionnaire survey
| Description | Local zebu | Crossbred | Sum |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total head of cattle | 2631 | 1077 | 3708 |
| Male cattle | 809 | 135 | 944 |
| Female cattle | 1822 | 942 | 2764 |
| Dry cows | 339 | 276 | 615 |
| Lactating cow | 595 | 321 | 916 |
| Oxen (draft) | 711 | 95 | 806 |
| Bulls/heifers | 918 | 332 | 55 |
| Calves | 68 | 53 | 121 |
Selected variable of the respondents’ knowledge and attitude on cattle blackleg
| Variables | Number of respondents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Heard about blackleg | ||
| Yes | 308 | 93.3 |
| No | 22 | 6.7 |
| Clinical signs mentioned | ||
| 1. Lameness | 23 | 6.9 |
| 2. Swelling of affected area | 39 | 11.8 |
| 3. Sudden death | 13 | 3.9 |
| 4. Crepitating sound | 78 | 23.6 |
| 5. Mentioned 1,2, 3 and 4 | 162 | 49 |
| 6. Others | 15 | 4.5 |
| Mostly affected category mentioned | ||
| Emaciated and old once | 82 | 24.8 |
| Young with good body condition | 210 | 63.6 |
| All animals | 39 | 11.8 |
| Aware that vaccination prevent the disease occurrence | ||
| Yes | 290 | 87.8 |
| No | 40 | 12.2 |
Cumulative incidence of blackleg infection and mortality rates based on breed, sex and age category from the study districts
| Description of events | Local zebu | Crossbred | p value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CuI in study groups (%) | n = 471 | 17.9 (16.5–19.4) | n = 206 | 19 (16.9–21.6) | 0.381 |
| CuI in male animals (%) | n = 108 | 13.4 (11.2–15.9) | n = 16 | 11.9 (7.4–18.4) | 0.364 |
| CuI in female animals (%) | n = 363 | 19.9 (18.2–21.9) | n = 190 | 20 (17.7–22.9) | 0.878 |
| CuI in age category |
|
| |||
| CuI in calves (%) | n = 3 | 4.4 (1.5–12.2) | n = 9 | 16.9 (9.2–29.2) | |
| CuI in bulls/heifers (%) | n = 329 | 35.8 (32.8–38.9) | n = 107 | 32.2 (27–37.4) | |
| CuI in adults (%) | n = 139 | 8.4 (7.2–9.9) | n = 90 | 13 (10.7–15.7) | |
| Mortality rate in affected study groups (%) | n = 94 | 3.6 (2.9–4.4) | n = 43 | 3.9 (2.9–5.3) | 0.539 |
| Mortality in males (%) | n = 24 | 2.9 (2–4.4) | n = 6 | 4.4 (2–9.4) | 0.368 |
| Mortality in females (%) | n = 70 | 3.8 (3–4.8) | n = 37 | 3.9 (2.9–5.4) | 0.912 |
| Mortality in age category (%) |
|
| |||
| Mortality in calves (%) | n = 1 | 1.5 (0.2–7.9) | n = 1 | 1.9 (0.3–9.9) | |
| Mortality in bulls/heifers (%) | n = 66 | 7.2 (5.7–9) | n = 27 | 8 (5.7–11.6) | |
| Mortality in adults (%) | n = 27 | 1.6 (1.1–2.4) | n = 15 | 2.2 (1.3–3.6) |
CuI cumulative incidence
Estimated annual financial costs of blackleg in the investigated herds for both local zebu and crossbred cattle (in ‘000 USD)
| Variables for financial costs | Local zebu cattle | Crossbred cattle | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Av. Prodn losses (Q) | Value (USD) | Av. Prodn losses (Q) | Value (USD) | |
| 1. Estimated milk losses | 2377.6 L | 1.617 | 4961.4 | 3.374 |
| 2. Annual mortality losses | 94 (3.57 %) | 21.32 | 43 (3.99 %) | 13.416 |
| 3. Total work output losses | 665.5 days | 2.642 | 79 days | 0.314 |
| 4. Total treated animals and costs | 121 animals | 0.206 | 89 animals | 0.169 |
| 5. Vaccination coverage and costs | 27 % | 0.028 | 22 % | 0.237 |
| Total costs in zebu cattle | 25.813 | 17.51 | ||
| Annual cost per head for zebu | 0.0098 | 0.0163 | ||
| Grand total (local zebu + crossbred) | 43.323 | |||
Av. Prodn losses average production losses
Estimated local market prices of various items in 2011/12 year (in USD)
| Parameters estimated (USD) | Local zebu cattle | Crossbred cattle |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Average weighted cattle value | 227 | 312 |
| 2. Traction value of an ox per day | 3.97 | 3.97 |
| 3. Draft power value/ox/year | 238 | 238 |
| 4. Treatment cost/unit | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| 5. Vaccination cost/unit | 0.04 | 0.07 |
| 6. Milk price/L | 0.68 | 0.68 |
Financial benefit of blackleg control through planned vaccination in four districts using partial budgeting model (in ‘000 USD)
| No. | Parameters | Breed category | Sum | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local zebu | Crossbreds | |||
| I | New costs | |||
| Vaccination cost | 5.62 | 2.02 | ||
| II | Revenue forgone | |||
| Opportunity labour cost | 0 | 0 | ||
| Sub-total costs (I + II) | 5.62 | 2.02 | 7.64 | |
| III | New revenue | |||
| 1. Milk production increase | 17.16 | 12.2 | ||
| 2. Draft power output increase | 17.73 | 5.38 | ||
| IV | Cost saved | |||
| Treatment cost | 22.44 | 5.15 | ||
| Sub-total benefit (III + IV) | 57.33 | 22.73 | 80.06 | |
| Net benefit per head | 0.0004 | 0.0008 | ||
| Percentage of financial benefit from the control per head | 3.4 | 6.9 | ||