Bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis at a livestock–wildlife interface in Zimbabwe: A nexus for amplification of a zoonosis or a myth?
Abstract Background Bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis are important zoonoses affecting both livestock and wildlife. Objectives The study aimed to investigate seroprevalence of brucellosis and to isolate Brucella spp. and Mycobacterium bovis in cattle from livestock–wildlife interface areas. Method...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023-05-01
|
| Series: | Veterinary Medicine and Science |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.1084 |
| _version_ | 1797825886272094208 |
|---|---|
| author | Gift Matope Masimba B. Gadaga Barbara Bhebhe Priscilla T. Tshabalala Pious V. Makaya |
| author_facet | Gift Matope Masimba B. Gadaga Barbara Bhebhe Priscilla T. Tshabalala Pious V. Makaya |
| author_sort | Gift Matope |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis are important zoonoses affecting both livestock and wildlife. Objectives The study aimed to investigate seroprevalence of brucellosis and to isolate Brucella spp. and Mycobacterium bovis in cattle from livestock–wildlife interface areas. Methods Three 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. Results Overall, 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. Conclusions The 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T10:59:28Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-7c16d1f0cf2048eaa5231d238b34217c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2053-1095 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T10:59:28Z |
| publishDate | 2023-05-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Veterinary Medicine and Science |
| spelling | doaj.art-7c16d1f0cf2048eaa5231d238b34217c2023-05-16T19:51:19ZengWileyVeterinary Medicine and Science2053-10952023-05-01931327133710.1002/vms3.1084Bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis at a livestock–wildlife interface in Zimbabwe: A nexus for amplification of a zoonosis or a myth?Gift Matope0Masimba B. Gadaga1Barbara Bhebhe2Priscilla T. Tshabalala3Pious V. Makaya4Faculty of Veterinary Science Department of Veterinary Pathobiology University of Zimbabwe Harare ZimbabweDepartment of Veterinary Technical Services‐Central Veterinary Laboratory Harare ZimbabweDepartment of Veterinary Technical Services‐Central Veterinary Laboratory Harare ZimbabweDepartment of Veterinary Technical Services‐Central Veterinary Laboratory Harare ZimbabweDepartment of Veterinary Technical Services‐Central Veterinary Laboratory Harare ZimbabweAbstract Background Bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis are important zoonoses affecting both livestock and wildlife. Objectives The study aimed to investigate seroprevalence of brucellosis and to isolate Brucella spp. and Mycobacterium bovis in cattle from livestock–wildlife interface areas. Methods Three 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. Results Overall, 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. Conclusions The 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.https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.1084livestock–wildlife interface |
| spellingShingle | Gift Matope Masimba B. Gadaga Barbara Bhebhe Priscilla T. Tshabalala Pious V. Makaya Bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis at a livestock–wildlife interface in Zimbabwe: A nexus for amplification of a zoonosis or a myth? Veterinary Medicine and Science livestock–wildlife interface |
| title | Bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis at a livestock–wildlife interface in Zimbabwe: A nexus for amplification of a zoonosis or a myth? |
| title_full | Bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis at a livestock–wildlife interface in Zimbabwe: A nexus for amplification of a zoonosis or a myth? |
| title_fullStr | Bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis at a livestock–wildlife interface in Zimbabwe: A nexus for amplification of a zoonosis or a myth? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis at a livestock–wildlife interface in Zimbabwe: A nexus for amplification of a zoonosis or a myth? |
| title_short | Bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis at a livestock–wildlife interface in Zimbabwe: A nexus for amplification of a zoonosis or a myth? |
| title_sort | bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis at a livestock wildlife interface in zimbabwe a nexus for amplification of a zoonosis or a myth |
| topic | livestock–wildlife interface |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.1084 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT giftmatope bovinebrucellosisandtuberculosisatalivestockwildlifeinterfaceinzimbabweanexusforamplificationofazoonosisoramyth AT masimbabgadaga bovinebrucellosisandtuberculosisatalivestockwildlifeinterfaceinzimbabweanexusforamplificationofazoonosisoramyth AT barbarabhebhe bovinebrucellosisandtuberculosisatalivestockwildlifeinterfaceinzimbabweanexusforamplificationofazoonosisoramyth AT priscillattshabalala bovinebrucellosisandtuberculosisatalivestockwildlifeinterfaceinzimbabweanexusforamplificationofazoonosisoramyth AT piousvmakaya bovinebrucellosisandtuberculosisatalivestockwildlifeinterfaceinzimbabweanexusforamplificationofazoonosisoramyth |