Javascript is currently disabled in your browser. When javascript is disabled, some functions of this website will not work.
Open access for scientific and medical research
From submission to the first editing decision.
From editor acceptance to publication.
The above percentage of manuscripts have been rejected in the past 12 months.
Open access to peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals.
Dove Medical Press is a member of OAI.
Batch reprints for the pharmaceutical industry.
We provide real benefits for authors, including fast processing of papers.
Register your specific details and specific drugs of interest, and we will match the information you provide with articles in our extensive database and send you a PDF copy via email in a timely manner.
Back to Journal »Veterinary Science: Research and Reports» Volume 12
Seroprevalence and related risk factors of bovine brucellosis in western Ethiopia
Authors: Sima DM, Abdeta Ifa D, Merga AL, Tola EH
Published on December 15, 2021, the 2021 volume: 12 pages, pages 317-324
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/VMRR.S338930
Single anonymous peer review
Editor approved for publication: Professor Young Lyoo
Demiso Merga Sima,1 Debela Abdeta Ifa,1 Akililu Likasa Merga,2 Eyob Hirpa Tola1 1Wollega University College of Veterinary Medicine, Nekemte, Ethiopia; 2West Wollega District, Haru District Livestock and Fishery Development Office, Gimbi, Ethiopia Communication: Eyob Hirpa Tola Mail is protected]; [email protected] Background: Brucellosis is a contagious bacterial disease that affects domestic animals, humans and wildlife in Ethiopia and other countries. Method: From November 2019 to July 2020, a cross-sectional study design using simple random sampling was carried out in the Diga, Guto, Jeddah and Sibu districts of East Wallega District, Western Oromia State To determine the prevalence of bovine brucellosis and determine the related risk factors. A lottery method was used in the serum collection process, and risk factors were identified during the interview process. Results: A total of 1152 bovine serum samples were collected 6 months old and above. Serum samples were tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (I-ELISA). The overall seropositivity rate for brucellosis was 1.82% (21/1152). The seropositivity rate of bovine brucellosis in breeds [P≤0.05; or: 8.905; CI: 1.568-50.573], parity [P≤ 0.05; or: 0.017; CI: 0.042-5.195], residual membranes [P ≤0.001; or: 0.018; CI: 0.00-2.169], history of miscarriage [P≤0.001; or: 0.030; confidence interval: 0.004-0.212]. On the contrary, the differences in seroprevalence of gender, region, village, physical condition score, and age were not statistically significant (P>0.05). Conclusion: Current research shows that because there is no strict control and prevention plan, bovine brucellosis is posing a threat to livestock. Therefore, raising the public's awareness of the importance of zoonotic diseases of this disease is crucial, and the government should formulate legislation to support, control and prevent the proposed disease. Keywords: bovine brucellosis, brucella, region, ELISA, risk factors, seroprevalence, serum
Brucellosis is a highly infectious, zoonotic and economically significant bacterial disease that can infect a variety of terrestrial and aquatic animals. This disease is considered one of the most common zoonotic diseases in the world. 1 Domestic animals (cattle, sheep, goats, camels and pigs), humans and wild animals are all affected by this disease. 2 Bovine brucellosis usually has three main causes, namely Brucella abortus, B. melites and B. suis. 3 Brucella abortus serovar-1 is a common serotype. 4,5 Miscarriage in the third trimester, weak calf, stillbirth, endometritis, infertility and decreased milk production are common symptoms of female animals. In bulls, the disease is characterized by orchitis, epididymitis, seminiferitis and infertility. 6,7 Since brucellosis is an important cause of miscarriage, especially in primiparous heifers, the disease can also cause economic losses in developing countries. 3 Ingestion of contaminated pasture, feed, feed, water, contact with aborted fetuses, urine excrement and newborn calves containing a large number of infectious microorganisms constitute a very important source of infection. 44 The risk factors that affect the spread and maintenance of brucellosis are age, sex, parity and number of services; preconceivedness and reproductive status are related to brucellosis seropositivity. 1
Although Ethiopia’s livestock industry has contributed to the national economy, the productivity of each livestock is very low, mainly due to technical limitations and diseases such as brucellosis. 8 A large number of studies on cattle have reported that the seroprevalence of brucellosis ranges from 0-50% in the intensive management system 9,10 and 0.05-15.2 in the extensive management system. 11,12 Human and animal brucellosis have been reported in different regions of Ethiopia, especially related to cattle in different agro-ecological and production systems. 13 Animals and humans are largely limited to serological investigations, usually for bovine brucellosis, occasionally sheep and goats, and rarely camels. Therefore, so far, attempts to identify Brucella in this country have not been successful; the distribution and proportion of its natural hosts have not been studied in detail. 14 The prevalence of bovine brucellosis in different areas of the country has been established, but there is little information about its status in the study area. Further evaluation of the status of the disease and related risk factors is essential for the control and prevention of brucellosis in Ethiopia as a whole, especially in western Ethiopia. Therefore, the current study aims to determine the seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis in the study area and the risk factors involved.
The study was conducted in three purposeful areas in the East Volga District of Western Oromia, Ethiopia, namely: Tiga, Gutogida and Sibu areas, based on the accessibility of roads and the feasibility of sample collection And the number of cattle they own. Tiga District is 343 kilometers from Addis Ababa and 12 kilometers from Nekmut. There are about 69,965 heads of cattle, 16,424 heads of sheep, 11,857 heads of goats, 39,730 heads of poultry, and 800,099 people. Its potential land cover area is 59,545.43 hectares. According to the Tiga Livestock and Fisheries Office, it is bordered by East Gutogida, Sivolega District and Benishangul Gumuz, North Sahiga District and South Lekadulecha. 16 Gutogida District is located 320 kilometers south of Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia. There are approximately 136,005 cattle, 2,2004 sheep, 23,349 goats, 8,370,95 poultry, and 101,189 people. It borders East Vayutuka District, Sidija District and Sahiga District, North Jeddah Ayana District and South Lekadulecha District. 17 Sibu-Sire district is located 273 kilometers west of Addis Ababa and 58 kilometers away from Nekmut. There are approximately 323,954 cattle, 45,723 sheep, 32,258 goats, 186,215 poultry, and a population of 92,099. The map of the study area is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 Map of the study area.
Figure 1 Map of the study area.
The inclusion criteria of the study population were cattle 6 months or older, and local cattle and hybrid cattle that were extensively reared in selected locations in the Diga Guto Gida and Sibu Sire regions were the subjects of the study. Therefore, under the guidance of the developers, 384 cows older than 6 months and males and females were selected from the three selected protected areas in each region. Sample animals from each PA by including different families and by drawing lots from their cattle proportionally. During the sampling period, most of the animals included in the study were females because they were kept for milk production and production, while the males were sent to graze and slaughter. 54,55
A cross-sectional study was used to screen for bovine brucellosis between November 2019 and July 2020.
The total number of animals required is determined using the formula given by Thrusfield. 18 The sample size was determined by using a 95% confidence interval at 50% expected prevalence and 0.05 required absolute precision.
= 384. In order to improve accuracy, triple samples from different agroecology are included.
Where n = required sample size; pexp = expected prevalence, d = expected absolute accuracy.
The animals to be studied were selected through a simple random sampling technique. Therefore, this study included 1152 cattle of different sexes and different age groups. The sample size of each district and village is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 The sample size of each district and each village.
Figure 2 The sample size of each district and each village.
A blood sample (9 mL) was collected from the jugular vein of each animal using a sterile needle and a common vacuum blood collection tube, and allowed to coagulate in an inclined position at room temperature. Decant the serum into labeled vials and store at -20 °C until shipping. 19 Use an ice box to transport the serum to the Bacteriology/Serology Unit of the Bedele Regional Laboratory Center (BRLC) and store it at -20 °C for further processing. 20 Breeds, sex, age, physical condition, and the relationship between farmers and other risk factors are recorded with each animal's blood sample.
According to the World Organization for Animal Health 20 procedures and instructions, all collected sera were screened by indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (I-ELISA). Use a commercial I-ELISA kit (from ID.vet, BRUS-MS-5P, C35, 1014GB, Grabels, France) for indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. It detects antibodies against B. abortus. Follow the program provided by the developer. 20 Before performing the test, remove the serum and all reagents from the refrigerator and place them at room temperature for half an hour. Add the serum and control to the microwells, and coat the microwells with B. abortus LPS at a dilution rate of 1/20. After adding multi-species horseradish peroxidase (HRP) conjugate and substrate solution (TMB) at the recommended strength, check the plate strength, culture plate, and detect the reaction at 450 nm on the automatic ELISA reader strength. After the dilution stops, the yellow color in the well indicates that the test serum has Brucella antibodies. If the average odds ratio of the positive and the ratio of the positive and negative controls are calculated as ODPC>1.0 and ODPC/ODNC>0.1, the test is valid. The harvested result is interpreted as the seropositivity percentage (S/P %) ≥ 60% is positive, and <60% is negative. 20
Use STATA version 14 to analyze data entered in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Use multivariate logistic regression to test the significant impact of risk factors. Odds ratio (OR) is used to measure the degree of association between risk factors and brucellosis. For statistical inference, a P value of <0.05 at a 95% confidence level and 5% accuracy is considered statistically significant.
All participants were informed of the purpose of the study and signed a written legal consent form for participation before the start of the study. The study design involved interviews with animal blood samples and human participants. The investigation protocol and animal handling ethics were approved by the ethical review committee of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of Wallega University. The East Wallega District, the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Resources Office and the East Wallega District Administrative Office also issued letters of support.
From the collected 1152 bovine sera, the overall seroprevalence rate of brucellosis was recorded as 1.82% (21/1152). The survey results in Guto Gida and Sibu Sire areas are almost similar, with 2.08% (8/384) and 2.34% (9/384) respectively. In Diga district, especially in Jirata village, the seroprevalence rate reported as low as 1.04% (4/384) is zero, and there is no brucellosis. However, the difference in prevalence between regions was not statistically significant (P>0.05) (Table 1). Table 1 The seropositivity rate of bovine brucellosis in three different areas of East Wallega District
Table 1 The seropositivity rate of bovine brucellosis in three different areas of East Wallega District
According to this study, the levels of anti-Brucella antibodies detected in female research animals were higher than those in male research animals, at 2.3% and 0.6%, respectively. However, the difference is not statistically significant (p>0.05). Similarly, the differences in the seropositivity rates of regions, villages, breeds, age, and physical condition scores were not statistically significant (p>0.05) (Table 2). On the other hand, other variables, breeds, pregnancy status, residual membranes, and history of miscarriage were significantly related to the disease (P<0.05) (Table 2). Table 2 The gradual association between risk factors and bovine brucellosis seropositivity
Table 2 The gradual association between risk factors and bovine brucellosis seropositivity
The results of univariate analysis showed that there was a significant correlation between the native and hybrid cows and Brucella seroprevalence. The probability of brucellosis in hybrid cattle is 8.905 (95% CI: 1.568-50.573) times higher than that of local breeds. Similarly, it was found that females’ history of miscarriage and retained placenta were significantly associated with bovine brucellosis. Univariate logistic regression showed that the probability of a cow with a history of miscarriage was 0.03 times that of a cow without a history of miscarriage (95% CI: 0.004–0.212). The odds of single-parity cattle is 27.372 times higher than that of cattle without parity, and cattle with multiple births are 0.017 times higher than cattle without parity (Table 2).
Among many herders and small-scale livestock keepers, bovine brucellosis is still largely undiagnosed and controlled. Scarcity of resources, problems with disease diagnosis, limited knowledge of regional epidemiology, and poor knowledge of the social factors that cause the disease have increased the persistence of the disease in cattle herds in the Diga, Guto Gida, and Sibu Sire regions of East Wallega. Zone.14 The overall prevalence rate of brucellosis in western Ethiopia is 1.82%. This finding is comparable to previous reports recorded in different parts of Ethiopia, 21 for example, 1.3% in eastern Ethiopia, 22 1.38 in Somali regional state, Jijjiga region, 4,15 1.4% in Bushoftu and Asella, 23 1.49% in northwestern Ethiopia And 56 bovine brucellosis seroprevalence rates of 1.04% were recorded by I-ELISA technology in the Becho district of Sheva, southwest of Oromia State, Ethiopia.
On the other hand, the seroprevalence rates in different areas of Ethiopia are low, 11 Jimma district is 0.73%, 24 West Shewa is 0.49%, 25 Ethiopia’s northern urban dairy farm is 0.4%, 26 Debrebirhan and Ambo towns are 0.2%, 12 and 0.05. % Is in the Arsi area. According to reports, the seropositivity rate of bovine brucellosis in other regions of the country is relatively high, 27 3.1% in Gima District of Oromia, 28 2.77% of Addis Ababa dairy cows, and 29 Adamitolu in central Ethiopia 4.3%, 30 4.9% in Citigre, 3 8.0% in the country’s pastoral areas, 31 9.87% in Asella’s organized dairy farms, 32 10.6% in Borana, 33 11.0% in the Wuchale-Jida district in central Ethiopia, 34 And 11.2% are in the pastoral area and the farming and pastoral areas of East Sheva District. Similarly, other African countries35 reported higher seroprevalence rates, Tanzania at 5.3%, 36 Nigeria at 24.0%, 37 Ghana at 21.9%38 and Sudan at 24.5%. The difference in total prevalence may be due to differences in research seasons, types of production systems, sample sizes, laboratory techniques used, and ecology.
The prevalence of hybrid (7.4%) animals is higher than that of local (1.7%) cattle. This difference is statistically significant (p<0.05). 31,39–42 Similarly, the serological prevalence of brucellosis has been reported to be significantly different from the prevalence of hybrids than native species. The higher seropositivity rate among hybrid varieties may be due to the small sample size, which is less than the number of hybrid varieties examined compared to local varieties.
In this study, gender is one of the risk factors that affect the susceptibility of cattle to Brucella infection. The study area showed that women were seropositive (2.32%) and men (0.6%) were seropositive. However, this finding is not statistically significant, which is inconsistent with previous reports. 11,43 The lower seroprevalence of males may be due to the lower number of males tested compared to females, and the reported serological response to brucella infection in male animals 44,45 In addition, it is reported , Infected male animals usually show low antibody titers. 46
Obviously, sexually mature animals are more susceptible to B. abortus infection. 11,45 This can be explained by the increased susceptibility during sexual maturity and pregnancy due to the influence of sex hormones and the increase in fetal body fluids and erythritol. placenta. This stimulates the growth and reproduction of bacteria in the reproductive organs. 1,30,47 However, in the current findings, the difference in seroprevalence among different age groups is not statistically significant.
In this study, the association between parity and Brucella infection was statistically significant. Different results are reported. 45,49 The history of miscarriage and residual membranes were significantly related to the infection in this study (p<0.05). This finding is consistent with that of Tolosa and Geresu. 48,49 This can be explained as these two factors are typical results of brucellosis. 31,41,49 Other studies have also shown a significant association between the disease and miscarriage 27,41,43,50 Similarly, studies from different African countries have shown that brucellosis in cattle is directly related to the existence of miscarriage. 51-53
This study showed that the overall prevalence of bovine brucellosis in the study area was 1.82. Gender, BCS, breed, residual membranes and history of miscarriage are potential risk factors for the diseases studied. However, due to lack of information about the disease status, and the cost of eliminating the disease from the country far exceeds the economic conditions of farmers and the country as a whole, there is no control and prevention plan in place. Therefore; awareness of the impact of the disease, the mode of transmission, risk factors, disease prevention methods, and the culling of positive animals should be improved. Take appropriate sanitation and hygiene measures to reduce the risk of exposure to brucellosis. In addition, detailed research is recommended to investigate the link between diseases and humans in the study area.
The author thanks the staff of the Bedele area veterinary laboratory for their support and cooperation in the collection and processing of samples. In addition, I would like to thank the Diga, Guto Gida and Sibu Sire districts, the Livestock and Fishery Resources Development Office, and agents for their assistance in the field data collection process by promoting technical work and farmer coordination.
The research was funded by Wallega University and the Biedler Regional Veterinary Laboratory.
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
1. Asgedom H, Damena D, Duguma R. The seroprevalence and related risk factors of bovine brucellosis in Alage area and surrounding areas in Ethiopia. Springer plus. 2016;5(1):851. doi:10.1186/s40064-016-2547-0
2. Geresu MA, Ameni G, Tuli G, Arenas A, Kassa GM. Seroprevalence and risk factors of Brucella in dairy cows in Asera and Bischoftu towns in Oromia Prefecture, Ethiopia. Afr J Microbiol Res. 2016;10(7):203-213. doi:10.5897/AJMR2015.7707
3. Megersa B, Biffa D, Abunna F, Regassa A, Godfroid J, Skjerve E. A seroepidemiological study on brucellosis of livestock in pastoral areas. Epidemic infection. 2012;140(5):887–896. doi:10.1017/S0950268811001178
4. The International OIE (OIE). Manual of diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals (mammals, birds, and bees). 6th edition. Paris: Office of International Epidemiology; 2008:712-724.
5. Tekle M. Brucellosis seroprevalence and the isolation of Brucella from small ruminants with a history of miscarriage in selected villages in Amibara District, Afar Region [Master of Science Thesis]. Debre Zeit, Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University School of Veterinary Medicine; 2016.
6. Megid J, Mathias A, Carlos R. Clinical manifestations of brucellosis in livestock and humans. Turn on the veterinarian. science. J. 2010;4(1):119-126. doi:10.2174/1874318801004010119
7. Tesfaye A. Brucellosis of cattle and small ruminants in selected sites in the Tigray region of northern Ethiopia [DVM paper]. Debre Zeit: FVM, AAU; 2003.
8. Shiferaw Y, Tenhagen BA, Bekena M, Kassa T. Reproductive performance of hybrid cows in different production systems in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Trop Anim Hlth Prod. 2003;25(6):551–561. doi:10.1023/A:1027377722576
9. Lakew A, Hiko A, Abraha A, Hailu SM. The seroprevalence and community awareness of the risks associated with brucellosis in livestock and humans in selected areas in the Fafan district of the Ethiopian-Somali ethnic region. Veterinary Animal Science. 2019; 7:100–147. doi:10.1016/j.vas.2019.100047
10. Yohannes M, Degefu H, Tolosa T, Belihu K, Cutler RR, Cutler SJ. Brucellosis in Ethiopia. Afr J Microbiol Res. 2013; 7(14): 1150–1157. doi:10.5897/AJMR12.738
11. The Seroepidemiology of Bovine Brucellosis in Garoma T. Horro Guduru Animal Production and Research Center and its surrounding areas, Western Ethiopia [Master's thesis]. Switzerland: Geneva Academy; 2018.
12. Degefa T, Duressa A, Duguma R. Brucellosis and some reproduction problems of indigenous arsi cattle in the selected arsi region of Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Global veterinarians. 2011; 7(1): 45–53.
13. Debassa G, Tefera M, Addis M. Brucellosis in small ruminants: a serological survey in the Yabelo district of Ethiopia. Asian J Animation Science. 2013;7(1):14-21. doi:10.3923/ajas.2013.14.21
14. Yohannes M, Degefu H, Tolosa T, Belihu K, Cutler R, Cutler S. Brucellosis in Ethiopia. Afr J Microbiology. 2012; 7: 1154-1155.
15. Gumi B, Firdessa R, Yamuah L, etc. Serological prevalence of brucellosis and Q fever in livestock in pastoral areas of southeastern Ethiopia. J Vet Sci Med Diagn. 2013;2(1):1-5. doi:10.4172/2325-9590.1000109
16. DLFO. Diga District Animal Husbandry and Fishery Development Office; 2011.
17. GGLFO. Animal Husbandry and Fishery Development Office of Gutojda District; 2011.
18. Thrusfield M. Veterinary epidemiological sampling. The third edition. London: Blackwell Science Ltd.; 2007:214-256.
19. World Health Organization. Monitoring and control of emerging diseases and other infectious diseases. Development of new/improved brucellosis vaccines (WHO meeting report, Geneva, December); 1997:1-37.
20. World Organization for Animal Health; World Organization for Animal Health. Bovine brucellosis. In: Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccine Standards. The fifth edition. Paris: World Organization for Animal Health; 2004:242-262.
21. Terefe Y, Girma S, Mekonnen N, Asrade B. Brucellosis and related risk factors in dairy cows in eastern Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2017; 49(3): 599–606. doi:10.1007/s11250-017-1242-7
22. Degefu H, Mohamud M, Hailemelekot M, Yohannes M. The seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis in the farming and pastoral area of Jijiga District in the Somali ethnic region of eastern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Veterinary Journal 2011; 11:69-84.
23. Serological investigation of bovine brucellosis in Mekonnen H, Kalayou S, Kyule M. Barka and arado (Bos indicus). Former veterinary medicine. 2010;94(1–2):28–35.
24. Sarba EJ, Getaneh AM, Borena BM, etc. Seroprevalence and related risk factors of brucellosis in dairy cows in selected towns in Sishewa, Ethiopia. Bull Animal Health Prod Afr. 2016;64(4):387–395.
25. Asmare K, Prassad S, Asfaw Y, Gelae E, Ayelet G, Zeleke A. Brucellosis seroprevalence in cattle and high-risk animal health professionals in the Sidama district of the south. Ethiopian Journal of Veterinary Medicine 2007; 11:69-84.
26. Serum prevalence study of Bashitu L, Afera B, Tuli G, Aklilu F. Debrebirhan and Ambo. Bovine brucellosis and related risk factors. J Adv Dairy Res. 2015;3(1):131. doi:10.4172/2329-888X.1000131
27. Ibrahim N, Belihu K, Lobago F, Bekana M. The seroprevalence and risk factors of bovine brucellosis in Gima District, Oromia, southwestern Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2010;42(1):1006-1008. doi:10.1007/s11250-009-9382-z
28. Edao MB, Hailegebreal G, Berg S, etc. The myth and reality of Addis Ababa dairy cow brucellosis. BMC veterinary research. 2018; 14(1). doi:10.1186/s12917-018-1709-4
29. Tibesso G, Ibrahim N, Tolosa T. Serological prevalence of brucellosis in cattle and humans in Adami Tulu in central Ethiopia. World Journal of Applied Science 2014; 31: 776-780.
30. Haileselassie M, Kalayou S, Kyule M, Asfaha M, Belihu K. The impact of Brucella infection on the reproductive conditions of female Sitigre in northern Ethiopia and its public health significance. Veterinary Medicine International. 2011;43(5):1001–1005.
31. Eticha E, Solomon H, Lemma D, Abera B. Prevalence and risk analysis of bovine brucellosis in an organized dairy farm in Azera, Oromia State, Southeast Ethiopia. J Vet Med Animal Health. 2018;10(10):245–249. doi:10.5897/JVMAH2017.0558
32. Megarsa B, Biffa D, Abunna F, Regassa A, Godfroid J, Skjerve E. Brucellosis seroprevalence and their contribution to abortion of cattle, camels and goats under the management of the Bolana pastoral area in Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2011; 43(3): 651–656. doi:10.1007/s11250-010-9748-2
33. Kebede T, Ejeta G, Ameni G. Seroprevalence of brucellosis in cattle on small farms in central Ethiopia (Wuchale-Jida district). Rev Méd Vet. 2008;159:3-9.
34. Dinka H, Chala R. Study on the seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis in pastoral and agricultural and pastoral areas in Dongshowa District, Oromia Prefecture, Ethiopia. Am Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci. 2009;6(5):508–512.
35. Swai ES, Schoonman L. In a traditional and small-scale dairy production system in the Tanga region of Tanzania, the rose red plate test was used to assess the exposure of cattle to Brucella infection. Veterinary Medicine International. 2010; 2010: 1-8. doi:10.4061/2010/837950
36. Matope G, Bhebhe E, Muma JB, etc. Brucellosis seroprevalence and related risk factors in cattle from small dairy farms in Zimbabwe. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2011;43(5):975–982.
37. Mensah GI, Addo K, Aning KG, Nartey N, Nipah GK, Smits HL. Brucella abortus antibodies in raw milk collected from Kraals in the Savannah region off the coast of Ghana. J Basic Applied Science. 2011; 1(8): 942–947.
38. Seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis in Angara TE, Ismail A, Agab H, Saeed N. Kuku Dairy Scheme, northern Khartoum, Sudan; 2004.
39. Ndazigaruye G, Mushonga B, Kandiwa E, Samkange A, Segwagwe B. Prevalence and risk factors of bovine brucellosis seropositivity in Nyagatare District, Eastern Province, Rwanda. JS Afr Veterinary Association. 2018;89:1625-1630. doi:10.4102/jsava.v89i0.1625
40. Minda AG, Gobena A, Tesfu K, Getachew T, Angela A, Gezahegne MK. Seroprevalence and risk factors of Brucella in dairy cows in Asera and Bischoftu towns in Oromia Prefecture, Ethiopia. Afr J Microbiol Res. 2016;10(7):203-205.
41. Alemu F, Admasu P, Feyera T, Niguse A. The seroprevalence of Bovine Brucellosis in Toshowa, Ethiopia. Acd J Animal Dis. 2014;3(3):27-32.
42. Jergefa T, Kelay B, Bekana M, Teshale S, Gustafson H, Kindah H. Epidemiological study of bovine brucellosis in three agro-ecological regions in central Oromia, Ethiopia. Pastor technology. 2009;28(3):933–943. doi:10.20506/rst.28.3.1939
43. Adugna K, Agga G, Zewde G. Seroepidemiological survey of bovine brucellosis in cattle under the traditional production system in Western Ethiopia 32-3 Scientific and Technical Review. Pastor technology. 2013; 32(3): 765–773. doi:10.20506/rst.32.2.2218
44. The seroprevalence of brucellosis in Mohammed H. Jijiga and surrounding small ruminants [DVM paper]. Guima, Ethiopia: School of Veterinary Medicine, Guima University; 2009.
45. Berhe G, Belihu K, Asfaw Y. Seroepidemiological survey of bovine brucellosis in the extensive cattle breeding system in the Tigray region of Ethiopia. Int J Appl Res Vet Med. 2007;5(2):65–70.
46. Godfroid J, Saegerman C, Wellemans V, etc. How to prove the elimination of bovine brucellosis due to the specific serological reaction during the detection of brucellosis. Veterinary microorganisms. 2002;90(1–4):461–477. doi:10.1016/S0378-1135(02)00230-4
47. Radostitis OM, Gay CC, Hinchcliff KW, Police Constable PD. Special medicine for veterans. Textbooks on diseases of cattle, horses, sheep, pigs and goats. Sanders Elsevier. 10. Sydney, Toronto: Saunders Limited; 2007:867-882.
48. Tolosa T. A study on the seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis in selected sites in the Jimma district of West Ethiopia and its public health significance. The thesis submitted to the School of Veterinary Medicine of Addis Ababa University partially meets the requirements of a master's degree in tropical veterinary science; 2004:9.
49. Ataro A, Yosef D, Tadele T. Bovine brucellosis: seroprevalence and potential risk factors in Havasa town in southern Ethiopia and small-scale dairy farms in Ethiopia. Veterinary Journal 2019;23(2):41-63. doi:10.4314/evj.v23i2.4
50. Tolosa T, Regassa F, Belihu K. Study on the seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis in the extensive management system of selected sites in Jimma District, Western Ethiopia. Bull Anim Hlth Prod Africa. 2008;56:25-37.
51. Kubuafor DK, Awumbila B, Akanmori B. Bovine and human brucellosis seroprevalence in Akwapim-south, Ghana: public health impact. Acta Trop 2000;76(1):45-48. doi:10.1016/S0001-706X(00)00088-7
52. Asmare K, Sibhat B, Molla W, etc. The current status of Ethiopian cattle brucellosis, with special emphasis on foreign and hybrid cattle from dairy farms and breeding farms. Journal. 2013;126(3):186-192. doi:10.1016/j.actatropica.2013.02.015
53. Walker RL. Brucella. In: Hirsh DC, Zee YC, editor. Veterinary Microbiology. United States: Blackwell Science Inc.; 1999:196-203.
54. De-lahunta A, Habel R. Teeth, Applied Veterinary Anatomy. WB Sanders; 1986: 4-6.
55. Nicholson M, Butterworth M. Zebu scoring guide. Addis Ababa: Africa International Livestock Center; 1986.
56. Dinknesh T, Biniam T, Getachew K, Yifat D. The seroprevalence and related risk factors of bovine brucellosis in Becho district of Sheva, southwest of Oromia State, Ethiopia. ACR J Animal Veterinary Science. 2019;5(2):35–45.
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and include the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial (unported, v3.0) license. By accessing the work, you hereby accept the terms. The use of the work for non-commercial purposes is permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided that the work has an appropriate attribution. For permission to use this work for commercial purposes, please refer to paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our terms.
Contact Us• Privacy Policy• Associations and Partners• Testimonials• Terms and Conditions• Recommend this site• Top
Contact Us• Privacy Policy
© Copyright 2021 • Dove Press Ltd • Software development of maffey.com • Web design of Adhesion
The views expressed in all articles published here are those of specific authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dove Medical Press Ltd or any of its employees.
Dove Medical Press is part of Taylor & Francis Group, the academic publishing department of Informa PLC. Copyright 2017 Informa PLC. all rights reserved. This website is owned and operated by Informa PLC ("Informa"), and its registered office address is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 3099067. UK VAT group: GB 365 4626 36
In order to provide our website visitors and registered users with services that suit their personal preferences, we use cookies to analyze visitor traffic and personalize content. You can understand our use of cookies by reading our privacy policy. We also retain data about visitors and registered users for internal purposes and to share information with our business partners. By reading our privacy policy, you can understand which of your data we retain, how to process it, with whom to share it, and your right to delete data.
If you agree to our use of cookies and the content of our privacy policy, please click "Accept".