Edinburgh Research Explorer Prevalence and risk factors analysis of bovine tuberculosis in cattle raised in mixed crop-livestock farming system in Tigray region, Ethiopia
Citation for published version: Habitu, T, Areda, D, Muwonge, A, Tessema, GT, Skjerve, E & Gebrehiwot, T 2018, 'Prevalence and risk factors analysis of bovine tuberculosis in cattle raised in mixed crop-livestock farming system in Tigray region, Ethiopia', Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13050
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1111/tbed.13050
Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer
Document Version: Peer reviewed version
Published In: Transboundary and Emerging Diseases
General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Download date: 24. Sep. 2021 This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. 10.1111/tbed.13050 doi: lead todifferences version between this andthe ofPleasec Version Record. been and throughtypesetting, proofreadingwhich may thecopyediting, process, pagination This article undergone has for and buthas accepted been not review publication fullpeer husbandry livestock by countries. (BTB) tuberculosis Bovine Summary *Corresponding Author (email: [email protected]) Studies, University Edinburgh,of Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK ( ( 2) dep.00338146 Oslo, Norway; email: 1) Habitu,T. Articletype : Original Article DR. DEMELASHAREDA (Orcid ID 0000: 4) 3 Prevalence and riskfactors analysis of bovine tuberculosis in cattle raised in mixed crop )
Norwegian Veterinary Institute, Ulle Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, P.O. Box P.O. Science, Veterinary of School Norwegian The Biostatistics, and Epidemiology for Centre College Veterinaryof Medicine,Mekelle University, BoxP.O. 231, Mekelle, Ethiopia AcceptedDivision Article transformation of of transformation 1
,
In rural Ethiopia rural In of Genetics and Genomics, The Roslin Institute and the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary of School (Dick) Royal the and Institute Roslin The Genomics, and Genetics of Areda , D.
(1) practice to a to practice
ar industry dairy *, Muwonge,A.
,
s a is there is potential for potential is there farming systemin Tigray region,Ethiopia
ies o aia and animal of disease semi . [email protected] This va (1) - - intensification 0002
alsvei (4) , includes Tessema, G.T - 0185 e n 68, 0454, boxP.O 750 sentrum, 0106 Oslo a
-
9947) gradual change from the traditional m traditional the from change gradual shift in the epidemiolog the in shift
system. It is therefore, is It system. ( 2
) , ulc health public Skjerve, E.
(1)
, Gebrehiwot,T.
importance ic essential
of this disease driven disease this of ite this articleite this as
n developing in ( 3 to )
- document
livestock ixed - crop This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. of system prevailing the to according Baker, Amare, as well l of largestthehas Ethiopia Introduction Keywords: could cu catt P=0.027) (OR=2.1, of purchase and P=0.05), (OR=2.6, size herd large P=0.018), (OR=2.6, barn closed P= 0.014), (OR=3, breed exotic identified analysis model effect mixed logistic Multilevel (1.6%). Korem CI=3.4 (95% 4.3% was BTB of for prevalence Overall animal). individual accounting and herd (village, levels after three at effect factorsclustering risk determine to used was model effect mixed logistic test multilevel skin tuberculin he on intradermal data gather comparative to used were a Questionnaires using infection BTB for examined districts select Ethiopia. region, Tigray in system farming and prevalence control the iv ing in rural in ing rrent dairy development program development dairy rrent Acceptedcattle Article prevalence and risk factors of BTB of factors risk and prevalence
havecontributed to changing
generates37 n prevention and (Central Statistical Agency, 2016) Agency, Statistical(Central
Bovine Tuberculosis,
parts of the country the of parts
vlae, ed ad niiul ate A oa o 15 ctl fo 30 ed were herds 310 from cattle 1357 of total A cattle. individual and herds villages, , Solomon, & Davies, 2013) Davies, & Solomon, associated - 5.6), as -
87% of the household incomeshousehold the of 87% important risk factors for BTB. for factors risk important with the with cattle
strateg ik atr o BB mn ctl rae udr ie crop mixed under reared cattle among BTB of factors risk
resource hi ies Cattle, Ethiopia, , ghe
. but also but
. epidemiolog
centered on the on centered Here st prevalence recordedprevalence st
production, s to continuously update the update continuously to
in Africa with in . The purpose of livestock production varies considerably varies production livestock of purpose The . . ,
A m A This contributes 20 contributes e p we ulti sector ical situa Mixed Farming, eet idns f a of findings resent r
- srcue and structure d and can be classified as classified be can and stage purposive sampling approach was used to used was approach sampling purposive stage (Central Statistical Agency, 2010; GebreMariam,Agency,2010; Statistical (Central T aken together aken an introdu is not only critical for the for critical only not is tions tions of estimated populationestimated
% of the of % in Alamata district (5.6%) and lowest inlowest and district(5.6%) Alamata in
ction of ction Tigray, BTBin design gross domestic product ( product domesticgross , herd
these findings suggest that the that suggest findings these
exotic and or crossed animals crossed or and exotic cross
the study area. Tuberculin ing aaeet rcie. A practices. management - mixed farming, pastoral farming, mixed
etoa study sectional and implement and
of 59.48 of
livelihood of people of livelihood .
million - livestock
ation of ation GDP on on (CI head D ) the
T) as le .
This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Acceptedsociosignificant a have to known is BTB Furthermore, he public to threat eminent an poses disease endemic an is BTB where Ethiopia like countries 2017) al., et Popelka throughconsumption the of 150 nearly for responsible tuberculosis called mycobacteria pathogenic bovis settings affected diseases example diseases Articlecattle profitabilitythroughand past the Over sector 2005) har crop from residues the while power draught of suppliers important are oxen that in other each supplement mixed Ethiopia of highlands the in agro and ,
. -
hc also which management rp ietc production livestock crop
is used to used is Bovine tuberculosis is tuberculosis Bovine Despite i a eet td, t was it study, recent a in , - was that pastoral settingspastoral ,
estimated to have been $0.5M and $385M in 2005 and 2011 and 2005 in $385M and $0.5M been have to estimated . africanum M.
hav cattle for sources feed major the as used vest decade the huge the disproportionately
provide e affects .
rpld h econom the crippled However, s Te pedn pnei o HVAD ifcin seily n developing in especially infection HIV/AIDS of pandemic spreading The . ,
hr ha there
dissemination of
the a untapped (Food and AgriculturalandOrganization,2005) (Food
00 e css f ontc ueclss globally tuberculosis zoonotic of cases new ,000 , ie ag o warm of range wide contaminated that . microtti M. much one such infectious such one uh efforts such M ve . includes the includes
ycobacterium tuberculosis ycobacterium n ie pouto system production mixed In -
(Tschopp et al.,2013) needed resource been indicated and , improvedbreedsand numerous
y untreatedand milk its
nutrition f ietc keeping livestock of ha potentia
Tigray region, where the main agricultural activity is activity agricultural main the where region, Tigray e en severely been ve . canetti M. that - loe animals blooded disease fot t rnfr te ietc productivity livestock the transform to efforts supplies al - the economic cost cost economic the l economic impact affecting international tradeaffecting international impact economic , the meagre the . s
. I . Cezr 2004) (Coetzer, t
complex (MTC) complex is primarily is Fo ad giutrl Organization, Agricultural and (Food
awareness to the rural population of Ethiopia of population rural the to s products by
hampered .
h lvsok n co sectors crop and livestock the
. bovis M.
productivity . farmers Over
cause soitd ih livestock with associated (Muller al., et 2013; Olea
educationabout , 80 % of cattle of % 80
. respectively with respectively
which also which by eog t a ru of group a to belongs h ptoe i also is pathogen The n pastoralists and commonly , d
pervasive obtained by
Mycobacterium
includes are rearedare
from
acquired livestock efficient
urban .
alth.
this F M. or - .
This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted of north km 600 at namelyEthiopianorthern conducted was study The areaStudy and Materials undermixed crop study is studies epidemiological communities influence use Articleunderstanding of is region the in program control disease sustainable them. of one being BTB diseases, prevailing standard below is quantitatively, and qualitatively 2004) Tesfay, & Pender, fertility soil maintain to manure and consumption household for milk as such food products, animal and animals of sale from income cash household transport, and traction for power bovisM. by caused cases tuberculosis of proportion medianthe showed regions central in out carried mostly products livestock and livestock in programs odce t determine to conducted region, Tigray In In
in the ra d regions like
the epidemiology of of epidemiology the
.
or increasinga populationor human Designing methods the nge of 16.7% to 31.4% - livestock farming system inTigray region, Northern Ethiopia. disease epidemiology. h cptl city capital the Tigray . major
:
On the other hand, other the On
Enderta, Ofla and Alamata.Alamataand Ofla Enderta, essenti from evidence ,
livestockplayan importantsocio
changes rvlne f T and BTB of prevalence
l to al disease July (Mul ,
- based Addis
2008 limit the impact of impact the limit
(Mulleret al., 2013) ler et al., 2013) al., et ler in land use either due to climate change climate to due either use land in lk BTB like s
bb.Te liue ags rm 1 from ranges altitude The Ababa.
o eebr 08 in 2008 December to ies cnrl strategies control disease productivity obtained from livestock sub livestock from obtained productivity
hrfr, h ne fr mlmnig fiin and efficient implementing for need the Therefore, long with
hs impact whose level eviden
. In Ethiopia In . associated
de to due , changing settlementpatterns of
BTB. .
and t
-
economic role is
Here the south most district mostsouth the ,
this ik factors risk he dsrcs f iry region, Tigray of districts three , mn ohr factors other among ipootoaey affect disproportionately
the limited small limited the e report we , eurs ro ad adequate and prior requires ope with coupled .
These These
, in 178 ed
ate maintained cattle and
inclu – finding (Gebremedhin,
- 3 national - scale studies scale
sector, , and 4 meters 148 dedraught a widely a , may havemay fo a from s located robust large both land
This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. disease Furthermore, problems breed The residues. crop with supplementation and grazing field communal than other supplement sale. animal live income cash as well as production meat and milk subsistent power, draught for generation.income for marketlocal to sale andconsumption household local with cross cattle zebu crop mixed under managed herds 310 from selected female) 52.2% male; (47.8% cattle of heads 1,357 of consisted population study The Study Animals 80, 2008) Development, Resource Natural and census Agriculture livestock recent the to According power. draught for kept mainly are Cattle crop is districts study the in activityeconomic agricultural main The and temperatu In located is and district intensity high yet erratic bi has It respectively. mm, 950 and °C 22 is rainfall and temperature annual Mean m.a.s.l. 2800 to 1700 of range altitude an with Ababa Addis of north km 620 located rainfall and temperature annual Mean (<1500m.a.s.l).altitude low the inlyingarea the of % 75 (m.a.s.l),withlevel sea above Enderta
Accepted 249 Article
has gone through significant population size reduction size population significant through gone has sheep, 52,396 goats, 48 over
district constituting 89.9% of studied animals, with few exotic breed (6.9%) (Holstein) and their and (Holstein) (6.9%) breed exotic few with animals, studied of 89.9% constituting
re of 500 mm and °C,26 respectively.
the past 20 to 30 years 30 to 20 past the cattle
Livestock ,
96% of the agro the of 96% s 778 km north of Addis Ababa. The altitude ranges from1 ranges altitude The Ababa. Addis of north km 778 (3.1%).
n crnc ed hrae n h rgo hv be mjr osrit to constraints major been have region the in shortage feed chronic and
rains is are managed in typical traditional husbandry system with no extra feed extra no with system husbandry traditional typical in managed are 22.3
Holstein ,998 equines,and 136, similar to most highland areas highland most to similar
n 77 m rsetvl. fa (Korem) Ofla respectively. mm, 727 and - climatic condition is mid is condition climatic
breed is kept by small by kept is breed - li (Zerabruk, Bennewitz, Kantanen, Olsaker, & Vangen, 2007) Vangen, & Olsaker, Kantanen, Bennewitz, (Zerabruk, vestock farming practice. The breeds were predominantly were breeds The practice. farming vestock
108 poultry. t , e itit consist districts he - -
holder farmers for milk production for production milk for farmers holder altitude with the mean annual rainfall annual mean the with altitude s as a result of famine and man and famine of result a as s
of the country. Enderta country. the of
- livestock mixed farming system.farming mixed livestock - Zebu oa rifl faue by featured rainfall modal
is cattle
, south 500 to 2 to 500 f ,3,1 cattle, 1,131,614 of generation
are mainly kept mainly are
itit n is and district
is , 100 m.a.s.l. 100 Bra of (Bureau south
throug - made - zebu east h . This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. 5 animals, than10 more size Accepted herd for and sampled; were animals all cattle, 5 than less containing herds for 5 size with herds For size. herd the to proportional randomly sampled were cattle and herds, of number more included we herds, the within than herds between rang average On village. village the in herds of list consisted frame only except district per selected were villages Four diversity. climate and region distric three The concern. the studypopulation cross A design Study the calculated sample. Articlethe dropouts, possible Considering precision desired 1% and level confidence prev expected 5% with Therefore, size. sample required the estimate to considered was 5% of estimate prevalence national mean and region Tigray in BTB on data published no was There Sample size determination bureau. state the by provided often is and inadequate Bovine Contagious like disease infectious acute highly livestock
ing two villages were selected because of logistic problems encountered in th in encountered problems logistic of because selected were villages two -
sectional multi sectional from 3 to 60 60 to 3 from
productivity - 10 cattle were sampled. were cattle 10
and sampling strategy ,
about 20 to 30 herds were selected rand selected were herds 30 to 20 about . H . cattle . -
stage sampling strategy (district, village and herd level) was used in selecting in used was level) herd and village (district,strategy sampling stage erd Prevailing ts were selected based on their potentials for livestock production in the in production livestock for potentials their on based selected were ts was . Considering the variation in the outcome the in variation the Considering
consideredprimary as sampling livestock diseases in the region rang region the in diseases livestock
final sample size was adjusted to 1 to adjusted was size sample final A total of 310 herds were tested (207 farms with < 10 cattle and cattle 10 < with farms (207 tested were herds 310 of total A
, associations, which associations,
h mnmm ape ie a cluae t b 1 be to calculated was size sample minimum the - owned Pleuropnuemonia clin c rn ne te einl agricultural regional the under run ics
- omly from each village, with her with village, each from omly 10 cattle, five animals were s were animals five cattle, 10
in turn in unit and individual animals as , , which , consist 357 cattle by including 5% of 5% including by cattle 357 e
from chronic parasitism to parasitism chronic from
(CBPP). for Korem for ed
tend e field. The sampling The field. e
of 70 of
Veterinary care is care Veterinary ed
district - to be greater be to 80 herds per herds 80 alence, 90% alence, ampled;
unit of where d size d , 286.
This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. al., 2007; Tschopp, Schelling, Hattendorf, Aseffa, & Zinsstag, 2009) least at if positive tuberculosis as classified were Herdsinjection. of siteavian the at reaction skin the in increase the to equal or than less is injection sit 1 was site bovine the at reaction the when inconclusivereaction; avian 4 of reaction bovine towards tendency a was there when positive as classified Epizooties des International Office the of recommendations thickness skin using insulin syringe with injected was ( device calliper electronic an with mid the in Netherlands) UR, Wageningen IU/ml) (25,000 2500 PPD Tuberculin Avian and IU/ml) (30,000 3000 PPD using performed was (CIDT) test tuberculin intradermal cervical comparative A Tuberculin testing contribute The animals. and sick status anergic clinically and immunocompromised and pregnancy of stage late 10 . h rsl ws eodd s eaie i te nrae n kn hcns a te oie ie of site bovine the at thickness skin in increase the if negative, as recorded was result The e. Accepted Article 3
farms with ≥ 10 cattle) 10 ≥ with farms - neck region, 12 cm apart cm 12 region, neck to
false BTB at the injection sites was re was sites injection the at 0.1ml of bovine PPD and the other with similar amount of avian PPD, into dermis into PPD, avian of amount similar with other the and PPD bovine of 0.1ml (Shanghailife care International Trading Ltd). Co., test
negative results .
E xclusion criteria for criteria xclusion
the neck skin. Two injection sites were marked on the left side of of side left the on marked were sites injection Two skin. neck the ,
Preco Machine Tool Co., Ltd Co., Tool Machine Preco and shaved. and - . measured. The results were interpreted according to the to accordinginterpreted were results The measured.
T are one positive reactor animal was reported wasanimal reactor positive one he initial skin thickness at each site was measured was site each at thickness skin initial he
study animals were age less than less age were animals study
nbe o react to unable
Qingdao/Shandong, China). One site One China). Qingdao/Shandong, OE 2009) (OIE, e ru o animals of group se .
After 72 hours, theincrease in - to 4 mm greater than the avian the than greater mm 4
h si test skin the Te kn ecin was reaction skin The . Aia Sine Group, Science (Animal
mm greater than the than greater mm oie Tuberculin Bovine 1 year, cows at cows year, 1 ,
th a have can
(Oloya et (Oloya us ,
may This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. specif model such within for account to effects random specific appropriate deemed as Given reactor cattle divided by thetotal number of one least at with herds of number the as defined was prevalence level Herd cattle. tested total excluded. observat fewer and (>15) values missing many with Categories entries. incorrect miss any for verified were data analysis, to Prior analysis.statistical appropriate D Data analysis cattle zebu of scoring condition body for manual the in described guidelines on based fat and moderate with on based determined was animal an given specificcodesand datasetestablished in anExcel® spreadsheet for appropriate storage. Ageof forms. the filling upon English to back translated and (Tigrinya) b Structuredfarmers the to delivered were Questionnaires sheets. animals. of management and collecting data hygiene size, on herd on data generate recorded to owners livestock the first to administered were questionnaires were farms the from obtained Data managementData collection and Accepted w ataset Article iay ucm o te epne aibe ue f utlvl oitc ie efc mdl was model effect mixed logistic multilevel of use variable, response the of outcome binary
ic random variablesto accountfor correlation ofdata. the (Nicolson, 1986). owner’s multi B as - pre TB allows data, the of structure hierarchical to led that study the of design sampling stage
ed in read
recall valence was determined as the proportion of skin test positive animals out of the of out animals positive test skin of proportion the as determined was valence
accurate estimat accurate
A utlvl oitc m logistic multilevel A . information R a ,
ttsia cmuig n gahc sfwr ( 350 o windows for 3.5.0 (R software graphics and computing statistical
n it date birth on ion
dentition characteristics dentition
of coefficients and standard errors by incorporating cluster incorporating by errors standard and coefficients of
herds tested. - cluster correlation of BTB infection BTB of correlation cluster xd fet ersin oe icroaig cluster incorporating model regression effect ixed Bd cniin cr (C) a rcre a lean, as recorded was (BCS) score condition Body .
(Pace & Wakeman, 2003) Wakeman, & (Pace
P ttv epsr vrals were variables exposure utative y the local languages local the y ing
was used was observations andobservations os <0 were (<10) ions
combined .
as well as Use of Use ),
for - - -
This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. instudy. the to explained was study proposal. research the reviewingcritically after Agency, Technology and Science approval Ethical Ethical considerations village aherd.or For allstatistical tests a within cows for BTB to exposure of risk in similarity indicates ICC of value Large 2017). Merlo, herd between to compared village between to compared villages within BTB to cows individual estimate an (ICC), coefficient significan statistically compared models two level). cows (individual model two as well as animals), f calculated ( as (LR) statistic test Significance heterogeneity at individual levels. infection level herd and village at animals individual and BTB between association of level the in variation the of estimation Quadrature) Hermite likelihood maximum with fitted was model mixed logistic Multilevel Accepted Articlethat incorporated, . uh approach Such or or of of
, clustering effects two
respectively, thus accounting for within village and within herd herd within and village within for accounting thus respectively, was obtainedfro was - level in two . t
an
An cattle owners cattle - (in
(between level model (that incorporated herd and individual animals) and single level single and animals) individual and herd incorporated (that model level times the difference in the log likelihood values between three between values likelihood log the in difference the times oe ( model hierarchical
introduction rela gives s
which allows which a etmtd codn t mto dsrbd y utn Asi & (Austin Austin by described method to according estimated was A higher A tion tion due m the Research Ethics Committee of Tigray National Regional StateNationalRegional Tigray EthicsCommitteeResearchof the m that - better a
ilg o bten ed aine s non is variance herd between or village to to to to
by the local veterinary officers veterinary local the by way, incorporate eeec value reference , village
of of p value of the difference in the log the in difference the of value
< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. adm fet em (village terms effect random
village, herd village, comparison of heterogeneity in the risk of expos of risk the in heterogeneity of comparison siae f me of estimate and d herd
herd
was , and individual animals) individual and , rm χ from
as calculated by asures
level level 2
al, p table, 2
f soito and association of to solicit to cluster
siain aatv Gauss (adaptive estimation s a wl a wti herd within as well as , herd and computing ratio likelihood - 00) a considered was 0.05) < likelihood ratio of of ratio likelihood variable consent - zero). zero). The purpose of this of purpose The correlation . - ie alwd an allowed size) The LR was also was LR The n individual and to participate to - I
ntra level model level underlying - cluster any of of ure of ure the of s -
This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. 95%CI= 2.2 28.1; level herd with s variables tested other no district, Korem in BTB of prevalence Table on shown are variables R function and animal type. significant higher p source animal and breed with associated significantly was population study the in test tuberculin exposurefactor Table Risk factors associated with BTB 4.3 Animals acquired through purchasehad insignif 7.4 CI= 95% (12.8%; breeds exotic 3.9 Table in shown are variables non of proportion reaction doubtful giving CI=3.4 95% (4.3%; 59 tested, cattle 1357 the Of Prevalence of BTB Results <0.05 esults
Accepted Article- - 8.9) than in 0.7 CI= 95% (1.6%; Korem to compared 8.0) p 2 . B =0.018) and Ende
from
B rsns h rsls rm nvrae nlss f h ascain ewe idvda level individual between association the of analysis univariate from results the presents TB prevalence (OR=2.5) compared to to compared (OR=2.5) prevalence TB TB positivity was higher in exotic (OR= 3.8) than zebu c zebu than 3.8) (OR= exotic in higher was positivity TB
difference in BTB prevalence in prevalence BTB in difference -
14.9). the univariate analysis on the association between herd level prevalence and exposure and prevalence level herd between associationthe on analysis univariate the - s and cattle positivereactivity to tuberculinresults The test. showedthe positive that B born cattle (3.5%; 95% CI= 2.5 TB positivity. TB - reactors, doubtful, or positive) with respect to categories of different exposure different of categories to respect with positive) or doubtful, reactors,
s
rta
to the test. The distribution of skin test reactions (as the frequency and frequency the (as reactions test skin of distribution The test. the to districts 1
. The prevalence was significantly higher in Alam in higher significantly was prevalence The . 3 The .
H r peaec ws 61 (5 C= 12.4 CI= (95% 16.1% was prevalence erd herd - 12 cmae t idgnu ctl (.% 9% I 2.6 CI= 95% (3.5%; cattle indigenous to compared 21.2) (18.3%; 95%CI=12.6 prevalence
age (<10 year (<10 age - 4.9). icantly highertuberculosisicantly prevalence(6.2%; 95%CI= in - - .) ee oiie o BB wt 3 ctl (2.8%) cattle 38 with BTB; for positive were 5.6) - born
3.8). was higher was cattle. The - s or or s
25.9; p
rvlne a sgiiaty ihr in higher significantly was prevalence
≥ 10 years 10 ≥
n h ohr ad tee wasn there hand, other the On in Alamata (19.6%; 95% CI=13.3 95% (19.6%; Alamata in =0.025)compared to Korem (6.0%; howed attle; while purchased cattle had cattle purchased while attle;
n sgiiat association significant any old - condition, body sex, ), 20.7). ata (5.6 %; 95% CI= 95% %; (5.6 ata xet lower a Except - 4.7). ’ a t
at -
This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. study present the 2009) al., et Tschopp 2006; al., et Shitaye 2009; al., et (Berg previous from findings We Preva Discussion 4.2; p to reactivity positive of risk high to linked marginally only be to appeared 1.0 95%CI= (OR=2.6, heads ≤10 with herds with Herds t positivity. tuberculin Similarly, P=0.027). cattle 1.2 CI= 95% 3.0; (OR= higher times three was reaction positive tuberculinhaving cattle exotic of risk the Accordingly, importancefor a higherrisk of tuberculin positivity in individual c variability f ICC Similarly, village). in difference to due was cows individual between BTB in variability (25.7% 0.257 preva BTB of variation within that evidence significant 4 Table Results Acceptedubercu Article reported r ed a 032 3.% aiblt i BB ewe idvda cw ws u to due was cows individual between BTB in variability (39.2% 0.392 was herd or =0.055). lence of BTB becoming . losis from Likelihood ). The model showed that breed and animal source were the main predictive variables of variables predictive main the were source animal and breed that showed model The ).
≥20 heads of cattle were more likely to become tuberculin positive compared to those to compared positive tuberculin become to likely more were cattle of heads ≥20
positive an overall BTB individual animal prevalence of 4.3% in cattle in 4.3% of prevalenceanimal individual BTB overall an multilevel
- BTB .; = .1) oprd o nieos re. ieie te ds f purchased of odds the Likewise, breed. indigenous to compared 0.014) P= 7.4;
was ratio ratio barn O=., 5 CI=1.2 95% (OR=2.8, positive Herds maintained in closed confinement were at a at were confinement closed in maintained Herds lence was significant (LR=6.2; p (LR=6.2; significant was lence
studies in Ethiopia that reported prevalence reported that Ethiopia in studies uh lower much logistic
test ( test ye hr sz ad an yin wr iprat rdcos f herd of predictors important were hygiene barn and size herd type, was LR) mixed mixed - ilg variance village test wc higher twice
than fet model effect statistics
oprd to compared - 6 -
- 6.9; ; p 8;
for for 008 ta toe anand n open in maintained those than =0.018) p than a non was =0.05).
cluster showing < 0.05). Estimated value of ICC for village was village for ICC of value Estimated 0.05). <
the non ate O=.; 5C= 1.1 95%CI= (OR=2.1; cattle inborn
- or yinc condit hygienic Poor effect 24 eo (p zero
. ik atr fr BTB for factors risk However, - 0 peaec rpre i central in reported prevalence 30% attle. due
00) Smlry wti herd within Similarly, 0.05). < ranges between 3.5% and 4.7% and 3.5% between ranges
to the prevalence the . This .
village skin test (OR=95%CI=1.0 test skin greater
is in agr in is ion of animal barn animal of ion was
are risk of of risk 4.5 indicating 4.5 presented eement witheement
reported in reported becoming - T herd BTB i barn. air - 4.1; in -
This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. lands. low the in breeds horn long the and cattle land high the in breeds indigenous among immunity of level agro in difference to attributed areas districts study the among BTB of prevalence the in variation urban have might increasing system extensive traditional under countryside the in as where production peri example, For factors. climatic some possibly and breeds practice, to attributed be may Ethiopia in prevalence BTB in variation The shiftin epidemiological landscape in rural settings 2009) al., et Tschopp 2012; al., et Firdessa (a); 2003 Tibbo, & Amenu, is 16.1%,which prevalence was level herd the (0.9 BTB profound have to likely is This Ethiopia. rural to urban programs of prevalence higher have to tend Ethiopia % preval Ethiopia
Accepted Article) . - n di Ababa Addis in . It is worthy worthy is It . – ra areas, urban
en r lkl t have to likely are 2.4%) ra in areas
ce (Elias, Hussein, Asseged, Wondwossen, & Gebeyehu, 2008; Firdessa et al., 2012) al., et Firdessa 2008; Gebeyehu, & Wondwossen, Asseged, Hussein, (Elias,
n h area the in
intensification
was been a factor for factor a been
individual animal prevalence animal individual
Ethiopia reported mentioning more
Siae t l, 2006) al., et (Shitaye ed o follow to tend ,
n s and in small holder farms holder small in of o peaec o B of prevalence low xtc res f cattle of breeds exotic animal increased infection in the susceptible cattle population in population cattle susceptible the in infection increased that East African countries like countries African East that mlr atr is pattern imilar - ecology husbandry . hrfr, nrdcin f h eoi bed o ctl and cattle of breeds exotic the of introduction Therefore, some patterns of of patterns some ,
a above 90% of cattle are indigenous zebu breeds managed breeds zebu indigenous are cattle of 90% above s well as well s (Cleaveland et al., 2007; Katale et al., 2013) al., et Katale 2007; al., et (Cleaveland . This
BTB
much lower than 50 than lower much TB without (13.5%)
iey o apn n h rrl settings rural the in happen to likely suggests .
I i iprat o oie that notice to important is It . oprd to compared breed r reared are
impacts test and test (A , itiuin f mrvd res rm the from breeds improved of distribution
ht nml kp i peri in kept animals that meni et al., 2007) al., et meni which may possibly be attributed to high to attributed be possibly may which
Tanzania ha Tanzania (
Table in the in n ml sae n itnie dairy intensive and scale small in
o altitude low the difference the control program of tuberculosis of program control - in the in
60% reported by others reportedby 60% , this too support the eminent the support too this , 1 evolution of of evolution ) ugss ht ih altitude high that suggests ve c entral Ethiopia and most and Ethiopia entral
repor farms dairy in and
area in cattle husbandry cattle in t . hs ol be could This s. ed nml breeding animal epidemiology of epidemiology - ra frs in farms urban
. a much lower much a . In our study, our In h relative The central . A h A
(Ameni, igher
and (19
This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. present possibleother explanation couldd be a old among prevalence BTB low the for contributed anergy if investigate to interesting case. our in suggestive not was this while age, old with immunity reduced and time Biologically 2014) al., et Moiane 2012; al., et Firdessa 2007; al., et Cleaveland 2007; al., et Ameni (a); 2003 al., age that finding The indicating be from An spread of cattle in tuberculosis 2006)al., et (Ameni An importantrisk factor is con 2012) al., et (Vordermeier be to known are cattle zebu African example, animal of risk increased for difference breed of importance studies Previous ( herd the M Risk factors for BTB ultivariable analysis ultivariable
Accepted Article attributed increase in tuberculinreactivityincreasein increased risk of BTB infection in cattle kept in closed enclosures is similar is enclosures closed in kept cattle in infection BTB of risk increased previous stud previous
, mn ohr factors, other among a, study (318 out of 1357) disease animal husbandry practice p , =0.027)
it to an increase in the rate of contact th contact of rate the in increase an to is believed is
s Rma Gbegbhr & mn, 04 Sba e a. 2017) al., et Sibhat 2014; Ameni, & Gebrezgabiher, (Romha,
that ies , were important risk factors for tuberculin positive reactivity in the study area. study the in reactivity positive tuberculin for factors risk important were was
suggesting the importance of management practice in influencing the spread of of spread influencingpracticeinthe managementof suggestingimportance the
.
revealed that revealed (Cleaveland et al., 2007; Dejene et al., 2017; Tschopp et al., 2009) al., et Tschopp 2017; al., et Dejene 2007; al., et (Cleaveland are P n’t o ventil oor that older animals have higher probability of encountering infection over infection encountering of probability higher have animals older that as herds into animals purchased newly introducing of importance The .
transmitted through aerosol a risk factor risk a sistent awith previous finding .
could ation observed breed ( breed as ue to the lownumber of old animals (>10 years) nlec the influence important risk
for BTB for n hmd odto ae nw fcos soitd with associated factors known are condition humid and exotic cattle) ( cattle) exotic in largein herd more contradicts
at resistant to BTB than exotic breeds of cattle of breeds exotic than BTB to resistant factor outco
T in BTB including BTB favor
size p
=0.014 findings from preciousstudies from findings for e f yoatru ifcin F infection. mycobacterium of me
s (Tschopp al., et 2009)
(OR= 2.6;
transmission of infection in the herd the in infection of transmission cattle. contracting BTB. ) and )
G
p enetic purchase of new cattle into cattle new of purchase =0.05) compositi agrees
to previous findi previous to lo indicate also .
included
with t ol be would It nimals. The nimals. . on on
This could This (Ameni et(Ameni findings of of in d
host the the ng or
) . ,
This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. area. without husbandry slaughter animal of intensification in increase an and cattle of breeds i of reservoir as act could cattle of breeds zebu local in situation endemic productivity. and health animal for threat potential a be could transmission its for factors risk s of maintenance locality, the in breeds zebu tuberculosis active clinically of occurrence similar the though with Even Ethiopia ecosystem. of parts other and Tigray in system production cattle rural in widespread the Despite Zoonotic and socioeconomic implications (anergic state) to tuberculin test to lead of infected cattle.cattle area, Inthestudy are scenario is It morbidity. and mortality acute and high with diseases infectious crop mixed for problem cattle of lowerprevalencefinding (4.3of The #21) previous other the On fcin o te relati the for nfection
Accepted Articlegastrointestinal .
a decline a s f BTB of policy res are breeds tudies o prevalence low hand
lead
(Ameni et al., 2003 (a); Demelash et al., 2009; Katale et al., 2013; Oloya et al.,2007) et 2013;Oloya al., et Kataleal., 2009; Demelashet (a); 2003 (Ameni al., et ol b afce b te blt o tbrui si ts i dtcig chronically detecting in test skin tuberculin of ability the by affected be could in , parasites and parasites
the the cell the s
to local ey ucpil eoi breeds. exotic susceptible vely
- finding that sex and body condition weren condition body and sex that finding livestock production system of Tigray region, at least compared to other to compared least at region, Tigray of systemproduction livestock an
increase in susceptiblecattleincreaseinpopulation and
eu animals zebu mediated immune responses of the animal making them less sensitive less them making animal the of responses immune mediated
T finding BTB
(de la Rua concurrent %) of %)
BTB in BTB
of BTB - niae ta tbruoi isn tuberculosis that indicates , Domenechal., et 2006) managed poorly under
infections h peet study present the ubclinical infection and the existence of of existence the and infection ubclinical
rural
cattle production cattle with seily wt itouto o te exotic the of introduction with Especially, other diseases other
hw that shows
. chronic ’
t risk factor risk t
system in which the majoritytheinsystemwhich spread
’ is malnutrition, a ao aia health animal major a t worth . . . bovis M. paety low apparently These BTB of the disease in thediseaseinthe of for for
noting conditions s nei and endemic is BTB
n suc of source and B B et and test TB
high burden agree aggravating
that actual that
n local in s could
with The
This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. scholarship. UniversitNorwegian the from funding by supported was study This Funding valuable help during the field work. their for districts Ofla and Alamata Enderta, in officers veterinary and laboratory veterinary Veteri of College University, Mekelle at staffs technical authors The Acknowledgments and area the in genotypes epidemiological predominant identify to out carried un therefore from originated breeds, cattle improved projects development dairy the of Majority may study the Although contributing factors hygien poor house, same and the of conditions sharing as such cattle and human between intimacy close condition Moreover,
Accepted Article intended epidemiological consequ epidemiological intended
s ,
impo raise for . bovis M.
are indebted to Mekelle University for the logistic support. We thank veterinary thank We support. logistic the for University Mekelle to indebted are findings
zoonotic transmission and transmission zoonotic
rtant to continuously revi continuously to rtant link pertinent habit eta rgos f Ethiopia of regions central
s
for human transmission and vice versa
in cattle remains to be a threat to public health because of because health public to threat a be to remains cattle in with of this study this of f a ml ad et osmto aog h rrl communitie rural the among consumption meat and milk raw of genotypes questions hc rqie osn ad intensification. and housing require which may not not may
regarding
from highland areas ences. se disease se
human infections. Lack of awaren of Lack infections. human
accurately representaccurately We also recommend that molecular genetic analysis be analysis genetic molecular that recommend also We have been have hr peaec o BB s known is BTB of prevalence where changing husbandry system of of system husbandrychanging
control programs including BTB control BTB includingprograms control built around the dissemination of exotic or exotic of dissemination the around built .
.
nary Medicine (CVM), Mekelle regional Mekelle (CVM), Medicine nary
current status of of status current y of Life Sciences, through Quotathrough Sciences, Life of y
hs aias r often are animals These establish livestock ess about the disease, the about ess
BTB
o be to pervasive
poss
in the region. the in in Tigray, the Tigray, in high blt of ibility to avoid to .
are s ideal It
ic is
This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Central Statistical Agency. (2016). Central Statistical Agency. (2010). Bureau of Agricultureand Natural Resource Development. (2008). Berg, S.,Firdessa,Habtamu, R., Gadisa,M., E., Mengistu, A.,Yamuah, L.,Gordon, . S.V. (2009). The Ameni, G., Aseffa, A.,Engers, H.,Young, Hewinson, D., Vordermeier,G., & (2006).M. Cattle Ameni, G., Aseffa, A., Ameni, G., Amenu, K., & References T Competing interests Contributed to the writing theof manuscript:BD, HT, andES, AM GT. and BD, HT, experiments: the designed and Conceived Author Contributions Accepted Articleheauthors declarethat they haveno competing interests. Addis Ababa: LivestockCharacteristics (Private Peasant Holdings). Addis Ababa, Export Mekelle, Ethiopia. 4 burden of mycobacterial disease in ethiopian cat 1030 and gamma interferon r husbandryin is Ethiopia predominant a factor affectingpathology the bovineof tuberculosis Immun compared to zebu breedsunderfield cattlehusbandry incentral Ethiopia. High prevalenceand increased severity pathologyof of bovinetuberculosis in Holsteins International Journal ofApplied Research inVeterinary Medicine 1 Assessment in Cattleand Cattle Owners inWuchale (4), e5068. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005068
- 1036. doi:10.1128/cvi.001341036. . Retrieved from ol, 14 (10), 1356
Engers, H.,Young, D., Gordon, S., Hewinson, G., Vordermeier,& M. (2007).
Tibbo, M. (2003 (a)). Bovine Tuberculosis: Prevalenceand Factor Risk . Mekele. -
1361. doi:10.1128/cvi.00205 esponses to mycobacterial antigens.
Trade Bulletin Issue I. Focuson Ethiopia’s meat and Animal Live Agricultural Sample VolumeSurvey. II. Report on Livestockand
- 06
tle: implications for publichealth. ES. Analyzed the data: HT, BD, ES and AM. and ES BD, HT, data: the Analyzed ES.
- - Jida District,Central Ethiopia. 07
Livestockcensus analysis results, Clin Vaccine Immunol, 13
, 17 Ethiopia. - 25. 25.
Clin Vaccine
Retrieved from The PLoS One, (9), This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. AcceptedMoiane,I., Machado, A.,Santos, N., Nhambir, A., Inlamea, Hattendorf, O., J., . Correia Kat Gebremedhin, B., Pender, J., Tesfay, & G.(2004). Collec GebreMariam, S.,Amare, S.,Baker, Solomon, D., A., & Davies,R. (2013). Study of the Ethiopian live andFood Agricultural Organization. (2005). NEPAD Firdessa,R., Elias, Hussein, K., Asseged,D., B., Wondwossen, T., & Gebeyehu, M. (2008). Status bovine of ArticleDemelash, B.,Inangolet,F., Oloya, J., Asseged, B., Badaso, Yilkal,M., A., Skjerve,& E. (2009). Dejene,S. W., Heitkonig, I. A.,M. Prins, H. T., Lemma, F.A., Mekonnen, A.,D. Alemu, Z. .de E., dela Rua Coetzer,J. A. W., Tustin, R.C. (2004). Mycobacteria. In J. A.W.Coetzer , Tustin, R.C. (Ed.), Cleaveland, S.,Shaw, J.,D. Mfinanga, S.G., Shirima, G., Kazwala,R., R. Eblate, E., Sharp,& M. (2007). ale, B.Z., Mbugi, E.V., Karimuribo, E. Keyyu,D., J. D., Kendall, S., Kibiki, G.S., . .Matee, I. M. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0091527 livestockareas Govuroof District (2014). Prevalence bovine of tuberculosis and riskfactor assessment incattlein rural the Serengeti ecosystem, Tanzania. (2013). Prevalence and risk factors for infection bovineof tuberculosis in indigenous cattle in 82 crop cattle and beef value chain. (NEPAD Ref. 05/08 E). VolumeV ofVI Preliminary Options Outline. Programme. Ethiopia: Investment Project Profile “Live Animal and MeatExport” industry and publichealth. prevalence bovineof tuberculosis in dairy cattle incentral ethiopia:implications for the dairy tuberculosis inAddis Ababa dairyfarms. exami Prevalenceof bovine tuberculosis in Ethiopian slaughtercattle based on post 12 Boer, F. W. (2017). RiskFactors for Bovine Tuberculosisin (bTB) Cattlein Eth Sci, 81 tuberculin tests,gamma Clifton Diseasesof Cattle. Volume III populations. Mycobacterium bovis in rural Tanzania:risk factors for infection inhuman and cattle - Domen (3), 273 (4), e0176654. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176654 Tschopp, R., Wubete,A., Sombo, Hailu, M., Erenso, E., G.,. Berg, S. (2012). High – livestock mixed systems in the highlands of northern Ethiopia. nation. (2), 190 - Hadley,S. R. (2006). Ante mortem diagnosis of tuberculosis incattle:review a theof ech, R., Goodchild, A. T., Vordermeier, Hewinson, H. M., G., R. Christiansen, H., K. & - 290. doi: Tuberculosi Trop AnimTrop Health Prod, 41 - 210. doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2005.11.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2004.07.004 - s (Edinb),87 interferon assay and other ancillarydiagnostic te PLoS One, 7
23
Support NEPAD to (2nd ed.).CapeTown: Oxford University Press. , 1
- in the Southeast of Mozambique. 37. 37.
BMC VetBMC Res, 9 (1), 30 .
(12), e52851. doi:10.1371/journa (5), 755 Rev Sci Tech, 27 - – 43. doi:10.1016/j.tube.2006.03.001
ComprehensiveAfrica AgricultureDevelopment – tive action for grazing land management in - CAADP Implementati 765. doi:10.1007/s11250
, 26
7. doi:10.1186/17467. (3), 915
- 923. PLoS One, 9 Agricultural Systems, on TCP/ETH/2908 (I)
l.pone.0052851 - chniques. 008 - 6148
iopia. - mortem - 9248 (3), e91527.
- Neves, M. – - Infectious 9
PLoS One, - 267 - Res Vet 9
This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted Zerabruk, Bennewitz,M., J., Kantanen, J., Olsaker,I., & Vangen, O.(2007). Analysis genetic of Vordermeier, Ameni,M., G., Berg, S.,Bishop, R., D Robertson, B.,Aseffa, A., . B Young, (2012).D. Tschopp, R., Schelling, E., Hattendorf, J., Aseffa, A., Zinsstag,& J. (2009). Risk factors bovine of Tschopp, R., Hattendorf, J., Roth, F.,Choudhury, A.A., Shaw,A., Aseffa, A., Zi & Sibhat,B., Asmare, K., Demissie, K., Ayelet, G., Mamo, Ameni,G., & G. (2017). Bovinetuberculosis in ArticleShitaye,J. E., Getahun, B., Alemayehu, T., Skoric, M., Treml, F., Fictum, . P., .Pavlik,I. (2006). A Romha, G., Gebrezgabiher, Ameni,G., & G. (2014). Pace, J. E., Wakeman,& D. (2003).L. Determining the ageof cattleby their teeth. In I.E.C. Oloya, J., Muma, J. B.,Opuda Olea OIE. (2009). Bovinetuberculosis. In OIE (Ed.), Muller,B., Durr, S.,Alonso, S.,Hattendorf, J., Laisse, C. J., Parsons, S. . D., Zinsstag, J. (2013). - Popelka, F., Muwonge,A., Perera, A., Dean, A.S., Mumford, Erlacher E., Gen diversity and conservation priorities fornorth six Ethiopian cattlebreeds. The influence ofcattle bree 4), 205 tuberculosis incat doi:10.1007/82_2012_245 estimate of bovinetuberculosis to Ethiopia. 147 Ethiopia: Asystematicreview and meta lesions in cattlein Ethiopia. skin testing data,histopathological and IS6110 PCR examinati prevalencestudy bovineof tuberculosisusing by abattoir meat inspection and tuberculin Factorsin Cattle and Humans,atand around Dilla Town, Southern Ethiopia Universit 80 herd action. I.P. (2017). Z 908. doi:10.3201/eid1906.120543 Zoonotic Mycobacterium bovis (4), 318 (Supplement C), 149 et, 124 - level bovine - Lancet Infect Dis, 17 211. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.02.006 y y Floridaof (Ed.). - (4), 236 329. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.03.004 oonotictuberculosis in human beings caused by Mycobacterium bovis - tle intle rural livestockproduction systems of Ethiopia. tuberculosis seropositivity intranshumantcattle inUganda. - 241. doi:10.1111/j.1439 - Asibo, J., Djonne, B.,Kazwala, R., Skjerve,& E. (2007). Riskfactors - 157. doi:
d on susceptibility to bovine tuberculosisin Ethiopia (1), (1), e21 Veterinarni Medicina, 51 (11) - induced tuberculosis in human https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.09.006
- e25. doi:10.1016/s1473 OIE Terrestrial Manua - analysis. Assessment ofBovine Tuberculosisand Its Risk - 0388.2007.00660.x Curr Top Microbiol Immunol, 365 P reventive Veterinary Medicine,
, 512 . -
3099(16)30139 on ofon tissues with tuberculous - s. 522.
Emerg InfectDis, 19
- Vindel, .Fujiwara, E., Prev Vet Med, 89 nsstag, J. (2013). Cost J Anim Breed
(Vol. 2). - 6 , 249
Prev Vet Med,
(Vol. 35). - - 268. .
-
a call for (6), 899 for (3
- - This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted Article system inTigray, Ethiopia 1. Table Agegroup Sex Exposure variable Hygiene Barn/house/ Animal source Purpose Animal type Body condition Breed
itiuin f ate eciiy o uecln et n ate asd n ie crop mixed in raised cattle in test tuberculin to reactivity cattle of Distribution
Fattening Milking cow Steer Bull Heifer Dry cow Milking Fat Mediun Lean Exotic Cross Local 10≥ year <10 year Female Male Label Good [ Closed Open Purchase In Draughtanimal - Born
-
breed
No reaction (%) 1144 1144 (93.7) 294 (92.45) 966 (92.97) 1094 1094 (93.5) 329 (94.0) 663 (93.5) 597 (92.1) 727 (93.8) 166 396 (91.2) 864 (93.6) 546 (92.9) 663 (93.5) 525 (92.1) 215 (92.7) 423 (93.8) 863 (92.5) 79 79 (84.0) 37 (88.1) 67 67 (93.1) 29 (93.6) 68 (91.9) 51 51 (85)
(88.8) Reactivity to tuberculin test
Doubtful (%) 34 34 (2.8) 29 (2.8) 16 (2.3) 22 (3.4) 19 19 (2.5) 32 (2.7) 11 (2.5) 27 (2.9) 26 (4.4) 12 (2.4) 18 (3.2) 10 (2.2) 25 (2.7) 9 (2.6)9 (3.2)3 (2.4)1 (2.8)9 6 (3.2)6 (6.7)4 (4.2)3 (3.2)1 (2.6)6 (5.4)4
Positive(%) 12 12 (12.8) 219 (4.1) 12 12 (3.4) 43 (3.5) 14 (4.7) 44 (4.2) 30 (4.2) 29 (4.5) 29 29 (3.7) 15 (8.0) 44 (3.8) 27 (6.2) 32 (3.5) 26 (4.4) 27 (4.7) 11 (4.7) 18 (4.0) 45 (4.8)
4 (9.5)4 4 (6.7)4 (2.8)2 (3.2)1 (2.7)2
-
livestock
Total 1221 1039 1170 775 187 434 923 588 709 570 232 451 933 350 318 709 648 60 72 31 74 42 94
This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted Article District Feeding provided animals wild with Contact Herd mixing Total
No Yes Poor Enderta Alamata Korem All together Individually No Yes
1260 1260 (92.9) 1130 (93.2) 1087 1087 93.2) 502 (92.3) 452 (90.8) 306 (97.1) 130 (90.3) 656 (92.8) 604 (92.9) 173 (90.6) 533 (91.6)
38 38 (2.8) 16 (2.9) 18 (3.6) 35 (2.9) 19 (2.7) 19 (2.7) 33 (2.8) 19 (3.3) 4 (1.3)4 (2.1)3 (2.6)5
48 48 (3.96) 46 (3.95) 59 59 (4.3) 26 (4.8) 28 (5.6) 11 (7.6) 32 (4.5) 27 (4.2) 13 (6.8) 30 (5.2) 5 (1.6)5
1357 1213 1166 544 498 315 144 707 650 191 582
Animal source Function Animal type Body condition Breed Agegroup Sex Exposure variable This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. †=Significant between BTB and individual animallevel exposure variables inTigray, Ethiopia. 2. Table Accepted Article
eut fo uiait sadr lgsi rgeso aayi soig h association the showing analysis regression logistic standard univariate from Results
Label Purchase In Animal Draught Fattening cow Milking Steer Bull Heifer Dry cow Milking Fat Medium an Le Exotic breed Cross Local ≥10 year <10 year Female Male - Born
-
tested 1221 1039 434 923 588 709 570 232 451 933 350 318 709 648 No. 60 72 31 74 94 42
positive 27 11 18 45 12 12 43 15 44 30 29 27 32 26 29 2 1 2 4 4
Prevalence(95% CI) 12.8 (7.4 44.7 (3.4 (0.7 2.8 (0.7 2.7 (3.6 9.5 6.7 (2.5 6.7 3.2 (0.5 3.2 4.7 (2.6 4.7 (2.5 4.0 (3.6 4.8 (2.0 3.4 (2.6 3.5 (3.2 4.2 (3.0 4.2 (3.1 4.5 6.2 (4.3 6.2 (2.5 3.5 (3.0 4.4 4.1 4.7 (2.9 4.7
(2.9
------10.5) 10.2) 22.8) 16.5) - 19.7 - 8.4) 6.2) 6.4) 5.9) 21.2) 4.7) 5.6) 6.0) 6.5) 8.9) 4.9) 6.4) 5.8) 7.7 5.6)
OR 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.0 3.8 2.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.0
0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 1.6 0.7 0.6 0.4 1.4 1.4 0.7 0.7 (95%CI) 0.2 0.2 0.6 ------
2..7
2.6
3.7 4.8 2.0 6.3 9.0 6.3 2.2 1.4 4.7 2.4 3.7
P 0.003 0.003 - 0.573 0.768 0.607 0.726 0.903 0.186 0.759 0.415 0.499 0.241 value 0.71 ------
† †
This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted Barn/ house Feeding style contact Wildlife Herd mixing Hygiene ArticleHerd size District All herds Factors between BTB and herd level exposure variables inTigray,Ethiopia. Table 3.
eut fo uiait sadr lgsi rgeso aayi soig h association the showing analysis regression logistic standard univariate from Results
Closed Open Communal Individually No Yes No Yes Poor Good 20>= 10 10< Enderta Alamata Korem number Herd Label -
20
Herds tested
261 274 171 139 270 141 169 207 131 112 310 49 36 40 23 80 67
Positive 24 11 32 24 22 50 12 38 41 28 22 41 26 7 4 9 9
Prevalence(95% CI) 30.4 (15.2 15.5 (11.1 18.3 (12.6 19.6 (13.3 16.1 (12.4 24.5 (14.4 14.6 (10.8 15.0 (11.2 25.0 (13.5 16.4 (11.5 15.8 (10.6 22.5 (12.1 15.2 (11.5 18.4 (12.8 14.2 (9.7 13.8 (7.8 6.0 (2.2 6.0
- - -
------14.9)
20.4) 23.2)
51.7) 21.1) 25.9) 28.1) 20.7) 38.5) 19.4) 19.7) 41.6) 22.7) 22.9) 38.0) 20.0) 25.8)
OR 1.0 2.4 0.9 1.0 3.5 3.9 1.0 1.9 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.4 --
P - 0.076 0.716 0.025 0.018 0.087 0.129 0.896 0.244 0.313 value ------
This article isprotected rights by All copyright. reserved. Accepted Article Hygiene Barn/ house Herd sizecategory Animal source Breed Risk factor raised in mixed crop 4. Table
eut rm utlvl oitcmxd fet oe soig ik atr o BB n cattle in BTB for factor risk showing model effect mixed logistic multilevel from Result
- livestock system inTigray, Ethiopia Poor Poor Goodvs. Closed vs. Open ≥20 vs. <10 years Purchased in vs. Exotic Local vs. Cross Variable - breed vs. Local cattle
- Born
2.0 2.8 2.6 2.1 3.0 1.7 Adjusted OR
1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.54 CI) (95% - - - – -
4.2 6.8 6.9
- 7.4 4.1
5.4
P - 0.055 0.018 0.050 0.027 0.014 0.364 value