Bovine Brucellosis and Tuberculosis at a Livestock-wildlife Interface in Zimbabwe: A Nexus for Amplification of a Zoonosis or a Myth?

Overview

Journal Vet Med Sci

Specialty Veterinary Medicine

Date 2023 Feb 1

PMID 36723830

Authors

Gift Matope

Masimba B Gadaga

Barbara Bhebhe

Priscilla T Tshabalala

Pious V Makaya

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

Exploring bovine brucellosis in Bangladesh: Current scenario and future outlook.

Rahman M, Bose P, Ahamed T, Sultana P, Mukteruz-Zaman M, Sobur K J Adv Vet Anim Res. 2025; 11(4):888-913.

PMID: 40013292 PMC: 11855437. DOI: 10.5455/javar.2024.k840.

Recent progress in the genotyping of bovine tuberculosis and its rapid diagnosis nanoparticle-based electrochemical biosensors.

Zahran M, El-Shabasy R, Elrashedy A, Mousa W, Nayel M, Salama A RSC Adv. 2023; 13(45):31795-31810.

PMID: 37908649 PMC: 10613952. DOI: 10.1039/d3ra05606f.

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

Matope G, Gadaga M, Bhebhe B, Tshabalala P, Makaya P Vet Med Sci. 2023; 9(3):1327-1337.

PMID: 36723830 PMC: 10188082. DOI: 10.1002/vms3.1084.

References

Chimana H, Muma J, Samui K, Hangombe B, Munyeme M, Matope G . A comparative study of the seroprevalence of brucellosis in commercial and small-scale mixed dairy-beef cattle enterprises of Lusaka province and Chibombo district, Zambia. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2010; 42(7):1541-5. DOI: 10.1007/s11250-010-9604-4. View

Matope G, Bhebhe E, Muma J, Lund A, Skjerve E . Herd-level factors for Brucella seropositivity in cattle reared in smallholder dairy farms of Zimbabwe. Prev Vet Med. 2010; 94(3-4):213-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.01.003. View

Motsi T, Tichiwangana S, Matope G, Mukarati N . A serological survey of brucellosis in wild ungulate species from five game parks in Zimbabwe. Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 2014; 80(1):586. DOI: 10.4102/ojvr.v80i1.586. View

Caron A, Miguel E, Gomo C, Makaya P, Pfukenyi D, Foggin C . Relationship between burden of infection in ungulate populations and wildlife/livestock interfaces. Epidemiol Infect. 2013; 141(7):1522-35. PMC: 9151594. DOI: 10.1017/S0950268813000204. View

Hangombe M, Munyeme M, Nakajima C, Fukushima Y, Suzuki H, Matandiko W . Mycobacterium bovis infection at the interface between domestic and wild animals in Zambia. BMC Vet Res. 2012; 8:221. PMC: 3514303. DOI: 10.1186/1746-6148-8-221. View

Gomo C, De Garine-Wichatitsky M, Caron A, Pfukenyi D . Survey of brucellosis at the wildlife-livestock interface on the Zimbabwean side of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2011; 44(1):77-85. DOI: 10.1007/s11250-011-9890-5. View

Issa M, Filho P, Fonseca Junior A, Arrais Hodon M, Cristian Dos Santos L, Dos Reis J . Comparative study of Mycobacterium bovis primary isolation methods. Braz J Microbiol. 2016; 48(1):139-144. PMC: 5220631. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjm.2016.07.026. View

Matope G, Bhebhe E, Muma J, Lund A, Skjerve E . Risk factors for Brucella spp. infection in smallholder household herds. Epidemiol Infect. 2010; 139(1):157-64. DOI: 10.1017/S0950268810000968. View

Matope G, Gadaga M, Bhebhe B, Tshabalala P, Makaya P . Bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis at a livestock-wildlife interface in Zimbabwe: A nexus for amplification of a zoonosis or a myth?. Vet Med Sci. 2023; 9(3):1327-1337. PMC: 10188082. DOI: 10.1002/vms3.1084. View

10.

Nugent G . Maintenance, spillover and spillback transmission of bovine tuberculosis in multi-host wildlife complexes: a New Zealand case study. Vet Microbiol. 2011; 151(1-2):34-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2011.02.023. View

11.

Ndengu M, Matope G, Tivapasi M, Scacchia M, Bonfini B, Pfukenyi D . Sero-prevalence of chlamydiosis in cattle and selected wildlife species at a wildlife/livestock interface area of Zimbabwe. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2018; 50(5):1107-1117. DOI: 10.1007/s11250-018-1536-4. View

12.

Michel A, Geoghegan C, Hlokwe T, Raseleka K, Getz W, Marcotty T . Longevity of Mycobacterium bovis in Raw and Traditional Souring Milk as a Function of Storage Temperature and Dose. PLoS One. 2015; 10(6):e0129926. PMC: 4488074. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129926. View

13.

Nielsen K, Smith P, Widdison J, Gall D, Kelly L, Kelly W . Serological relationship between cattle exposed to Brucella abortus, Yersinia enterocolitica O:9 and Escherichia coli O157:H7. Vet Microbiol. 2004; 100(1-2):25-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2003.12.010. View

14.

Groocock C, Staak C . The isolation of Brucella abortus from a waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus). Vet Rec. 1969; 85(11):318. DOI: 10.1136/vr.85.11.318. View

15.

Al-Majali A, Talafha A, Ababneh M, Ababneh M . Seroprevalence and risk factors for bovine brucellosis in Jordan. J Vet Sci. 2009; 10(1):61-5. PMC: 2801095. DOI: 10.4142/jvs.2009.10.1.61. View

16.

CONDY J, Vickers D . Brucellosis in Rhodesian Wildlife. J S Afr Vet Assoc. 1972; 43(2):175-9. View

17.

Renwick A, White P, Bengis R . Bovine tuberculosis in southern African wildlife: a multi-species host-pathogen system. Epidemiol Infect. 2006; 135(4):529-40. PMC: 2870607. DOI: 10.1017/S0950268806007205. View

18.

Bengis R, Kock R, Fischer J . Infectious animal diseases: the wildlife/livestock interface. Rev Sci Tech. 2002; 21(1):53-65. DOI: 10.20506/rst.21.1.1322. View

19.

Ambrosio S, de Deus Oliveira E, Rodriguez C, Ferreira Neto J, Amaku M . Comparison of three decontamination methods for Mycobacterium bovis isolation. Braz J Microbiol. 2013; 39(2):241-4. PMC: 3768399. DOI: 10.1590/S1517-83822008000200008. View

20.

Thomson G, Vosloo W, Bastos A . Foot and mouth disease in wildlife. Virus Res. 2003; 91(1):145-61. DOI: 10.1016/s0168-1702(02)00263-0. View