| Literature DB >> 36046508 |
Mesfin Shurbe1, Bekahegn Simeon1, Wasihun Seyoum1, Ayelech Muluneh2, Ephrem Tora1, Edget Abayneh1.
Abstract
Background: Foot and mouth disease (FMD) is a highly contagious viral disease of cloven-hoofed animals, which hampers livestock production and productivity in Ethiopia. This cross-sectional study was conducted from January to December 2021 to estimate the seroprevalence of FMD in cattle and to assess farmers' knowledge about the disease in selected districts of the Gamo zone. Three districts and two kebeles (smallest administrative division) from each district were purposively sampled using a simple random sampling technique to select individual animals from each kebeles. A total of 384 sera samples were collected, and concurrently, 100 farmers were interviewed. The samples were tested for antibodies against nonstructural proteins of the FMD virus using a 3ABC enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were used to analyze FMD-associated risk factors. Result: The questionnaire survey result revealed that among the interviewed farmers, 66% of farmers had knowledge about the disease, and 28% of farmers reported having a case of FMD in at least one cattle in their farm in the previous 6 months. The overall seroprevalence of FMD in cattle was 26.8%. The multivariable logistic regression revealed that age, breed, and agroecology had a significant association with seropositivity. Higher seroprevalence (64.57%) was observed in lowland, followed by midland (9.30%) and highland (5.88%). Study animals from lowland areas were 9.26 times more likely to be seropositive (OR = 9.26, CI = 2.22-38.62) for FMD than highland animals. Also, adult animals were 9.01 times (OR = 9.01, CI = 3.18-25.53) more likely to be seropositive for the disease than young animals. The multivariable logistic regression revealed that crossbreeds have an 84.7% (OR = 0.153, CI = 0.028-0.82) lower likelihood to be seropositive to FMD than local breeds.Entities:
Keywords: Gamo zone; foot and mouth disease; knowledge; perception; seroprevalence
Year: 2022 PMID: 36046508 PMCID: PMC9421040 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2022.931643
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Vet Sci ISSN: 2297-1769
Figure 1Map of the study area.
Cattle owners' response to knowledge, prevention, and control practices of FMD.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| FMD knowledge | ||
| Yes | 66 | 66 |
| No | 44 | 44 |
| FMD vaccine information | ||
| Yes | 1 | 1 |
| No | 99 | 99 |
| Symptoms | ||
| Hypersalivation | 25 | 37.8 |
| Lesions on feet and mouth | 23 | 34.8 |
| Lameness | 16 | 24.2 |
| Inappetence | 2 | 3.2 |
| FMD 6 months occurrence | ||
| Yes | 28 | 28 |
| No | 72 | 72 |
| Control method | ||
| Treatment | 14 | 50 |
| Isolation | 9 | 32 |
| Selling | 2 | 7 |
| Slaughtering | 2 | 7 |
| Doing nothing | 1 | 4 |
| Knowledge about causes of FMD | ||
| Contact with wild life | 0 | 0 |
| Contact with infected animal | 20 | 30 |
| Introduction of infected animal | 9 | 14 |
| Do not know | 37 | 56 |
Summary of the risk factors of FMD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Calves | 102 | 5 | 4.90 |
| Young | 113 | 30 | 26.55 | |
| Adult | 169 | 68 | 40.24 | |
| Sex | Male | 89 | 25 | 28.09 |
| Female | 295 | 78 | 26.44 | |
| Breed | Local | 295 | 101 | 34.24 |
| Cross | 89 | 2 | 2.25 | |
| Body Condition | Poor | 70 | 16 | 22.86 |
| Medium | 169 | 45 | 26.63 | |
| Good | 145 | 42 | 28.97 | |
| Agroecology | Lowland | 127 | 5 | 5.88 |
| Midland | 172 | 16 | 9.30 | |
| Highland | 85 | 82 | 64.57 | |
| Management | Intensive | 75 | 5 | 6.67 |
| system | Semi intensive | 221 | 61 | 27.60 |
| Extensive | 88 | 37 | 42.05 | |
| Herd size | Small | 242 | 30 | 12.4 |
| Medium | 58 | 17 | 29.31 | |
| Large | 84 | 56 | 66.67 | |
| Herd composition | Mixed | 246 | 26 | 18.84 |
| Not mixed | 138 | 77 | 31.30 | |
| Contact with | Yes | 177 | 19 | 9.18 |
| wild life | No | 207 | 84 | 47.46 |
| Communal grazing | Yes | 273 | 8 | 7.21 |
| No | 111 | 95 | 34.80 | |
| Movement history | Yes | 167 | 67 | 40.12 |
| No | 217 | 36 | 16.59 |
Univariable logistic regression results of risk factor analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | |||
| Female | - | - | - |
| Male | 1.08 | 0.64–1.85 | 0.758 |
| Age | |||
| Calves | - | - | - |
| Young | 7.01 | 2.60–18.89 | 0.001 |
| Adult | 13.06 | 5.05–33.77 | 0.001 |
| Breed | |||
| Local | - | - | - |
| Cross | 0.044 | 0.011–0.183 | 0.001 |
| Body condition | |||
| Poor | |||
| Medium | 1.22 | 0.64–2.35 | 0.543 |
| Good | 1.37 | 0.701–2.67 | 0.345 |
| Agroecology | |||
| Highland | - | - | - |
| Midland | 1.64 | 0.58–4.64 | 0.350 |
| Lowland | 29.15 | 11.01–77.21 | 0.000 |
| Herd size | |||
| Small | - | - | - |
| Medium | 2.93 | 1.48–5.79 | 0.002 |
| Large | 14.13 | 7.81–25.57 | 0.001 |
| Herd composition | |||
| Not mixed | |||
| Mixed | 1.96 | 1.185–3.250 | 0.009 |
| Management type | |||
| Intensive | |||
| Semi-intensive | 5.34 | 2.06–13.85 | 0.001 |
| Extensive | 10.15 | 3.73–27.64 | 0.001 |
| Communal Grazing | |||
| No | |||
| Yes | 6.87 | 3.20–14.71 | 0.001 |
| Movement History | |||
| No | |||
| Yes | 3.36 | 2.09–5.41 | 0.001 |
| Contact with wildlife | |||
| No | - | - | - |
| Yes | 8.93 | 5.12–15.59 | 0.000 |
CI, Confidence interval; OR, Odds ratio.
Multivariable logistic regression results of risk factor analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||
| Calves | - | - | - |
| Young | 4.55 | 1.50–13.67 | 0.007 |
| Adult | 9.01 | 3.18–25.53 | 0.001 |
| Breed | |||
| Local | - | - | - |
| Cross | 0.153 | 0.028–0.82 | 0.029 |
| Agroecology | |||
| High land | - | - | - |
| Mid land | 0.725 | 0.21–2.55 | 0.617 |
| Low land | 9.26 | 2.22–38.62 | 0.002 |
*Result of the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test χ2 = 9.41; p = 0.309.