| Literature DB >> 29178951 |
Dennis Muhanguzi1, Albert Mugenyi2, Godfrey Bigirwa3, Maureen Kamusiime4, Ann Kitibwa3, Grace Gloria Akurut3, Sylvester Ochwo3, Wilson Amanyire3, Samuel George Okech3, Jan Hattendorf5,6, Robert Tweyongyere3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nagana (African Animal Trypanosomiasis-AAT) and tick-borne diseases (TBDs) constrain livestock production in most parts of sub-Saharan Africa. To this realisation, Uganda government set up an African trypanosomiasis (AT) control unit, which among other activities generates national tsetse control priority maps using apparent tsetse density data. Such maps underestimate mechanically transmitted AAT and thus ought to be refined using actual AT prevalence data. We therefore set out to generate up-to-date cattle and donkey trypanosomiasis prevalence data as well as find out the constraints to livestock production in Karamoja region in a bid to re-define AT control priority in this region.Entities:
Keywords: African animal trypanosomiasis; Control; ITS1-PCR; Karamoja region; Prevalence; Tick-borne diseases
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29178951 PMCID: PMC5702144 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-017-1285-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Fig. 1Current Uganda trypanosomiasis control priority map (Credit: Coordinating Office for Control of Trypanosomiasis in Uganda)
Fig. 2Study area. Seven Karamoja sub-region districts with 4 of the study districts highlighted (red borders)
Description of the cattle and donkey populations
| Population attributes | Cattle [N (%)] | Donkeys [N (%)] |
|---|---|---|
| A) Age | ||
| 0–12 months | 276 (13.6) | 5 (7.0) |
| 13-24 months | 341 (16.8) | 10 (14.1) |
| 25-36 months | 316 (15.6) | 7 (9.9) |
| >36 months | 1097 (54.0) | 49 (69.0) |
| B) Sex | ||
| Female | 1273 (62.7) | 49 (69.0) |
| Male | 621 (30.6) | 22 (31.0) |
| Neutered | 136 (6.7) | 0 (0) |
| C) Breed | ||
| Short horn East African Zebu | 2028 (99.9) | N/A |
| Friesian | 2 (0.1) | N/A |
|
| N/A | 71 (100) |
Relative cost of managing main livestock diseases in Karamoja region
| Disease | Karamoja region cattle | Number affected annuallyc | Direct Cost (UGX) of managing a case | Total Direct costs (billion UGX) | Total Indirect costsa (billion UGX) | Total costs | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Costs (billion UGX) | Total (million USD) | ||||||
| Anaplasmosis, Babesiosis, Cowdriosis | 2,600,000 | 468,000.0 | 25,000.0 | 11.7 | 9.1 | 20.8 | 6.1 |
| ECF | 468,000.0 | 75,000.0 | 35.1 | 27.4 | 62.5 | 18.3 | |
| Nagana | 452,400.0d | 3-4000b | 5.4 | 4.2 | 9.6 | 2.8 | |
| Total | 2,600,000 | 1,388,400.0 | 52.2 | 40.7 | 92.9 | 27.2 | |
Uganda shillings (UGX), United States Dollars (USD)
Costs were triangulated from responses of 20 kraal leaders’ focus groups as well as 21 individual key informants. Abroad brush analysis was undertaken using already published literature to generate indicative costs of dealing with AAT and TBDs
a Direct cost of managing vector-borne diseases like TBDs and AAT have previously been noted to be ~77.6% of the direct costs [9, 41]
b 4 Curative (diminazene) treatments per year (total UGX 12,000) or 3 prophylactic (isometamidium) treatments per year (UGX 12, 000)
c Tick-borne diseases (ECF, Anaplasmosis, Babesiosis) have been reported recently to have an incidence rate of 18% in the Karamoja region [22]
d Represents 17.4% of all cattle in Karamoja region; the proportion that this study found to be infected with at least a single economically important trypanosome
Prevalence of Trypanosoma spp. in cattle and donkeys in Karamoja region (May 2016)
| Trypanosoma spp. | Cattle (n = 2030) | Donkeys (n = 71) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | % prevalence (95%CI) | % Herd prevalencea | Positive | % prevalence (95%CI) | % Herd prevalencea | |
| Overall | 331 | 16.3 (12.4–21.1) | 85.7 | 23 | 32.4 (20.2–47.6) | 57.1 |
|
| 246 | 12.1 (9.0–16.1) | 80.0 | 4 | 5.6 (2.2–13.6) | 21.4 |
| T. congolense | 90 | 4.4 (3.0–6.5) | 68.6 | 21 | 29.6 (18.6–43.6) | 57.1 |
|
| 17 | 0.9 (0.5–1.7) | 25.7 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
aDue to the local farming systems, all animals within a village are considered as a herd
Donkey Trypanosoma spp. herd level prevalence in Karamoja region
| Village | District | Sampled (n) | Percentage prevalence | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T. spp. |
|
|
| |||
| Nasinyon | Kotido | 16.0 | 56.3 | 6.3 | 0.0 | 50.0 |
| Nadomeo | Kotido | 6.0 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 |
| Nakumoit | Kotido | 4.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 |
| Lokiding | Kotido | 6.0 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.7 |
| Lotanyat | Kotido | 3.0 | 66.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 66.7 |
| Kalogwel | Kotido | 5.0 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 40.0 |
| Kanameriongor | Kotido | 8.0 | 37.5 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 |
| Locheger East | Kaabong | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Morudikae | Kaabong | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Nariwore | Kaabong | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Lochoto | Kaabong | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Lolelia centre | Kaabong | 4.0 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 |
| Lokadangan | Nakapiripirit | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Moruarengan | Amudat | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Totals | 14 | 71.0 | 32.4 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 29.6 |
T. spp. Trypanosoma spp. namely; −T congolense, T vivax and T brucei s.l
Bovine Trypanosoma spp. herd level prevalence in Karamoja region
| Village | District | Sampled (n) |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T. spp |
|
|
| |||
| Loputuk | Kotido | 56 | 30.4 | 19.6 | 0.0 | 10.7 |
| Nasinyon | Kotido | 56 | 23.2 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 8.9 |
| Nadomeo | Kotido | 62 | 33.9 | 19.4 | 1.6 | 12.9 |
| Nakumoit | Kotido | 56 | 12.5 | 8.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| Namukur | Kotido | 56 | 33.9 | 16.1 | 7.1 | 10.7 |
| Lokiding | Kotido | 56 | 19.6 | 7.1 | 5.4 | 7.1 |
| Lotanyat | Kotido | 60 | 35.0 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 18.3 |
| Poet | Kotido | 56 | 10.7 | 10.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Kalogwel | Kotido | 60 | 28.3 | 21.7 | 0.0 | 6.7 |
| Kanameriongor | Kotido | 62 | 17.7 | 11.3 | 0.0 | 6.5 |
| Kanakuruk | Kaabong | 56 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.8 |
| Locheger East | Kaabong | 50 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Locheger West | Kaabong | 50 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 |
| Loputuk | Kaabong | 56 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Morudikae | Kaabong | 56 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Napeichokei | Kaabong | 50 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Nariwore | Kaabong | 56 | 10.7 | 8.9 | 0.0 | 1.8 |
| Kotarukot | Kaabong | 60 | 65.0 | 53.3 | 1.7 | 10.0 |
| Lobalangit | Kaabong | 56 | 16.1 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 1.8 |
| Lochoto | Kaabong | 56 | 25.0 | 17.9 | 1.8 | 5.4 |
| Lolelia Centre | Kaabong | 60 | 13.3 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 3.3 |
| Nakwakwa | Kaabong | 56 | 16.1 | 16.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Aoyalira | Nakapiripirit | 60 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Apeicorait | Nakapiripirit | 60 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Lokitela | Nakapiripirit | 60 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Lokadangan | Nakapiripirit | 60 | 10.0 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 1.7 |
| Nakiloro | Nakapiripirit | 60 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Naabore-B | Nakapiripirit | 46 | 30.4 | 23.9 | 4.3 | 2.2 |
| Arengesiep | Nakapiripirit | 60 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Abongai | Amudat | 82 | 31.7 | 18.3 | 3.7 | 9.8 |
| Korenyang | Amudat | 60 | 20.0 | 11.7 | 0.0 | 8.3 |
| Moruarengan | Amudat | 60 | 15.0 | 13.3 | 0.0 | 1.7 |
| Morumodo | Amudat | 60 | 35.0 | 15.0 | 3.3 | 16.7 |
| Angarab | Amudat | 60 | 30.0 | 30.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Tingas | Amudat | 60 | 18.3 | 18.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Totals | 2030 | 16.3 | 12.1 | 0.9 | 4.4 | |
T. spp. Trypanosoma spp. namely; −T. congolense, T. vivax and T. brucei s.l
Fig. 3Proportion of animals infected by any Trypanosoma spp. Data were aggregated at parish level because selected villages were within the interpolation distance and could not otherwise give enough spatial resolution
Fig. 4Donkeys used as the main form of transport for agricultural products and inputs in Kotido district, northern Karamoja (Credit: Dennis Muhanguzi)