4.5 Article

Risk factors of bovine tuberculosis in cattle in rural livestock production systems of Ethiopia

Journal

PREVENTIVE VETERINARY MEDICINE
Volume 89, Issue 3-4, Pages 205-211

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.02.006

Keywords

Ethiopia; Bovine tuberculosis; Mycobacterium bovis; Prevalence; Cattle; Risk factors

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust (UK)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study shows a representative stratified cluster sample survey of the prevalence of comparative intradermal tuberculin test in cattle from four regions in Ethiopia. Using a cut-off for positivity of 2 mm, it assesses possible risk factors for tuberculin-positive reaction in cattle. Seventy-three villages in 24 kebeles (administrative units) were randomly selected, from which 2216 cattle from 780 owners were tested. In addition, 450 of these cattle owners were interviewed for risk factor assessment. Ninety-nine percent of the tested cattle in this rural livestock production system were traditional zebus. The individual overall prevalence of cattle bovine tuberculosis (BTB)e was 3%, with the highest found in Meskan Mareko, in Central Ethiopia (7.9%) and the lowest in Woldia, in the North East edge of the Rift Valley (1.2%). Generalised Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) with random effect on kebeles was used to analyse risk factors of cattle reactors and human tuberculosis (TB) infection. Purchase of cattle and presence of other livestock in the herd were statistically significant, with OR: 1.7, p-values of 0.03 and OR: 2, p = 0.05, respectively. Family members diagnosed with TB or showing clinical signs of extra-pulmonary TB (EFTB) were reported in 86 households (19%). None of the assessed potential risk factors of disease transmission between cattle and human (food consumption, livestock husbandry and presence of BTB-positive cattle) were statistically significant. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available