Bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis at a livestock-wildlife interface in Zimbabwe: A nexus for amplification of a zoonosis or a myth?

被引:1
|
作者
Matope, Gift [1 ,3 ]
Gadaga, Masimba B. [2 ]
Bhebhe, Barbara [2 ]
Tshabalala, Priscilla T. [2 ]
Makaya, Pious V. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Zimbabwe, Fac Vet Sci, Dept Vet Pathobiol, Harare, Zimbabwe
[2] Cent Vet Lab, Dept Vet Tech Serv, Harare, Zimbabwe
[3] Univ Zimbabwe, Fac Vet Sci, Dept Vet Pathobiol, POB MP167, Harare, Zimbabwe
关键词
livestock-wildlife interface; RISK-FACTORS; NATIONAL-PARK; CATTLE; SEROPREVALENCE; PREVALENCE; INFECTION; AREAS; SEROPOSITIVITY; SPILLOVER; DISTRICT;
D O I
10.1002/vms3.1084
中图分类号
S85 [动物医学(兽医学)];
学科分类号
0906 ;
摘要
BackgroundBovine brucellosis and tuberculosis are important zoonoses affecting both livestock and wildlife. ObjectivesThe study aimed to investigate seroprevalence of brucellosis and to isolate Brucella spp. and Mycobacterium bovis in cattle from livestock-wildlife interface areas. MethodsThree sites were selected from high, medium and low interface. The high interface was adjacent to the park and separated by a broken fence, while the medium and low interface were 15-20 and 50 km from the perimeter fence, respectively. Cattle aged >= 2 years were randomly selected and bled for serology. Culture for brucellae and Mycobacterium species was attempted on lymph nodes collected at the slaughter floor. Sera were screened for Brucella antibodies using the Rose Bengal test and confirmed by the Complement fixation test. Data were analysed using a multivariable logistic regression model. ResultsOverall, seroprevalence was 11.7% (125/1068; 95% CI: 9.8-13.6%). High interface areas recorded significantly higher (p < 0.05) seroprevalence of 20.9% (85/406; 95% CI: 17.0-24.9%), compared to low 8.9% (31/350; 95% CI: 5.9-11.8%) and medium interface 2.9% (9/312; 95% CI: 1.0-4.8%). Brucella seropositivity was approximately three times higher (OR = 3.3, 95% CI: 2.1-5.3) for Malipati compared to Chiredzi. Similarly, the odds were twice (OR = 2.0, 95% CI: 1.2-3.5) in cows with history of abortion compared to those without. Brucella and Mycobacterium species were not isolated from all samples. ConclusionsThe study highlighted the significance of high interface as a nexus for amplification of brucellosis in cattle. Thus, a brucellosis control programme that takes into consideration limiting livestock-wildlife interaction should be considered.
引用
收藏
页码:1327 / 1337
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Brucellosis and chlamydiosis seroprevalence in goats at livestock-wildlife interface areas of Zimbabwe
    Bhandi, Solomon
    Pfukenyi, Davies M.
    Matope, Gift
    Murondoti, Absolom
    Tivapasi, Musavengana
    Ndengu, Masimba
    Scacchia, Massimo
    Bonfini, Barbara
    de Garine-Wichatitsky, Michel
    ONDERSTEPOORT JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH, 2019, 86 (01)
  • [2] Cross-sectional survey of brucellosis and associated risk factors in the livestock-wildlife interface area of Nechisar National Park, Ethiopia
    Chaka, Hassen
    Aboset, Gezahegn
    Garoma, Abebe
    Gumi, Balako
    Thys, Eric
    TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION, 2018, 50 (05) : 1041 - 1049
  • [3] Seroprevalence and Associated Risk Factors of Bovine Brucellosis at the Wildlife-Livestock-Human Interface in Rwanda
    Ntivuguruzwa, Jean Bosco
    Kolo, Francis Babaman
    Gashururu, Richard Simba
    Umurerwa, Lydia
    Byaruhanga, Charles
    van Heerden, Henriette
    MICROORGANISMS, 2020, 8 (10) : 1 - 15
  • [4] Prevalence and significant geospatial clusters of bovine tuberculosis infection at livestock-wildlife interface ecosystem in Eastern Tanzania
    Mwakapuja, Richard Simon
    Makondo, Zachariah Ephraim
    Malakalinga, Joseph
    Bryssinckx, Ward
    Mdegela, Robinson Hammerthon
    Moser, Irmgard
    Kazwala, Rudovick Reuben
    Tanner, Manfred
    TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION, 2013, 45 (05) : 1223 - 1230
  • [5] Risk factors for brucellosis in indigenous cattle reared in livestock-wildlife interface areas of Zambia
    Muma, J. B.
    Samui, K. L.
    Oloya, J.
    Munyeme, M.
    Skjerve, E.
    PREVENTIVE VETERINARY MEDICINE, 2007, 80 (04) : 306 - 317
  • [6] Pathogen Exposure in Cattle at the Livestock-Wildlife Interface
    Rajeev, Malavika
    Mutinda, Mathew
    Ezenwa, Vanessa O.
    ECOHEALTH, 2017, 14 (03) : 542 - 551
  • [7] Seroprevalence of brucellosis in cattle and selected wildlife species at selected livestock/wildlife interface areas of the Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe
    Ndengu, Masimba
    Matope, Gift
    de Garine-Wichatitsky, Michel
    Tivapasi, Musavengana
    Scacchia, Massimo
    Bonfini, Barbara
    Pfukenyi, Davis Mubika
    PREVENTIVE VETERINARY MEDICINE, 2017, 146 : 158 - 165
  • [8] Pathogens at the livestock-wildlife interface in Western Alberta: does transmission route matter?
    Pruvot, Mathieu
    Kutz, Susan
    van der Meer, Frank
    Musiani, Marco
    Barkema, Herman W.
    Orsel, Karin
    VETERINARY RESEARCH, 2014, 45
  • [9] Editorial: Climate and Parasite Transmission at the Livestock-Wildlife Interface
    Babayani, Nlingisisi D.
    Rose Vineer, Hannah
    Walker, Josephine G.
    Davidson, Rebecca K.
    FRONTIERS IN VETERINARY SCIENCE, 2022, 8
  • [10] Sero-prevalence of chlamydiosis in cattle and selected wildlife species at a wildlife/livestock interface area of Zimbabwe
    Ndengu, Masimba
    Matope, Gift
    Tivapasi, Musavengana
    Scacchia, Massimo
    Bonfini, Barbara
    Pfukenyi, Davis Mubika
    de Garine-Wichatitsky, Michel
    TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION, 2018, 50 (05) : 1107 - 1117