Veterinary World, EISSN: 2231-0916 RESEARCH ARTICLE

Available at www.veterinaryworld.org/Vol.7/July-2014/13.pdf Open Access

Prevalence and risk factor's analysis of bovine brucellosis in peri-urban

areas under intensive system of production in Gujarat, India
1 2 3 4 1 1
M. D. Patel , P. R. Patel , M. G. Prajapati , A. N. Kanani , K. K. Tyagi and A. B. Fulsoundar

1. Livestock Research Station, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari - 396 450, Gujarat, India;
2. Retired Professor and Head, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary College, Anand Agricultural
University, Anand - 388001, Gujarat, India; 3. Deputy Director, State Department of Animal Husbandry,
Navsari District Panchayat, Navsari, Gujarat, India; 4. Deputy Director, Animal Disease Investigation Office,
State Department of Animal Husbandry, Polytechnic campus, Ambavadi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
Corresponding author: M. D. Patel, email: [email protected]
PRP: [email protected], MP: [email protected], AK: [email protected],
KT: [email protected], ABF: [email protected]
Received: 31-03-2014, Revised: 14-06-2014, Accepted: 18-06-2014, Published online: 23-07-2014

doi: 10.14202/vetworld.2014.509-516 How to cite this article: Patel MD, Patel PR, Prajapati MG, Kanani AN, Tyagi KK and
Fulsoundar AB (2014) Prevalence and risk factor's analysis of bovine brucellosis in peri-urban areas under intensive system of
production in Gujarat, India, Veterinary World 7(7): 509-516.

Abstract
Aim: Astudy on surveillance of bovine brucellosis in dairy herds of peri-urban areas under intensive system of production was
carried out by milk-ELISA. Various risk factors were identified having significant association with occurrence of bovine
brucellosis in dairy herds of peri-urban areas.
Materials and Methods: Five randomly selected peri-uban areas of six cities of Gujarat were included in the present study.
Five randomly selected dairy herds under intensive system of production from each selected peri-urban area were included for
further investigation. In total, 199 bulk and 582 individual milk samples were screened by milk-ELISA. Forty three different
risk factors were identified and grouped into four major categories as general characteristics of farms, introduction of infection
to farms, management systems of farms and exposure of disease. Further, their distribution and association with prevalence of
bovine brucellosis was studied.
Results: The overall herd and animal prevalence in peri-urban areas was 33.70 and 11.90%, respectively. Out of 11 risk factors
on general characteristics of dairy farms, only five (herd size, type of animals, type of breed, age of owner and knowledge
gained by owners) showed significant (p<0.05) association with occurrence of bovine brucellosis. None of risk factors on
introduction of infection to farms (n=6) and management systems of farms (n=11) was found significantly associated with
occurrence of brucellosis. Among risk factors on exposure of disease (n=15), history of abortion, retention of placenta, still
birth and metritis/endometritis showed significant (p<0.05) association with prevalence of bovine brucellosis.
Conclusion: It was concluded that prevalence of bovine brucellosis in dairy herds under intensive system of production in
peri-urban areas of Gujarat was comparatively higher than reported overall prevalence of brucellosis. Risk factors like larger
herd in close confinement without adequate sheds, type of animal, type of breed and knowledge/awareness of dairyman,
unrestricted animal market, replacement without prior testing, reproductive disorders with absence of their testing are the
important risk factors under the intensive production system of peri-urban areas of Gujarat, India.
Keywords: bovine brucellosis, milk-ELISA, peri-urban area, risk factors.
Introduction abortion or calving of infected cows and the con-
The economic wellbeing of dairy farmers depends sequent contamination of the environment [2].
upon healthy, productive and sound reproductive The prevalence of infection in animal reservoirs
livestock. Among the various prevalent diseases which provides a key to its occurrence in humans also. There-
considerably affect production and reproduction fore, the correct and prompt diagnosis is important in
performance of dairy animals, bovine brucellosis is controlling and eradicating the disease in animals. The
perhaps the most economically important reproductive diagnosis of the disease can be challenging and is
disease of the rapidly growing Indian dairy industry. In frequently delayed or missed because the clinical
India, brucellosis was first recognized in 1942 and is picture may mimic other infectious and non-infectious
now endemic throughout the country. The disease has conditions [3]. Recently, ELISA has taken over as an
been reported in cattle, buffaloes, sheep, goats, pigs, dogs important serological tool in the diagnosis of brucellosis
and humans. Brucellosis in India is a very common but because of its economy, sensitivity, specificity, rapidity,
often neglected disease [1]. The most significant feature reproducibility, and easy interpretation through colo-
of bovine brucellosis epidemiology is the shedding of rimetric end product [4]. Further, the advent of milk
large numbers of organisms during 10 days after based I-ELISA (Milk-ELISA) brings revolution in
screening of large population. Milk-ELISA performed
Copyright: The authors. This article is an open access article licensed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
on bulk milk samples are now routinely and effectively
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) which permits used for screening and monitoring dairy cattle for
unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the work is properly cited.
brucellosis [5]. Overall in country as a whole and
Veterinary World, EISSN: 2231-0916 509
 Available at www.veterinaryworld.org/Vol.7/July-2014/13.pdf

Gujarat in particular, the village milk production system The epidemiological information and necessary
is being transforming into a milk production industry history regarding various risk factors were collected in
which is more concentrated in and around the city areas surveillance performed during the present study.Atotal
(peri-urban areas). Ahir, Bharvad, Rabari communities of 45 risk factors were taken into consideration. They
as well as other farmer communities are focusing on were grouped into four major categories i.e. 1) Risk
this profitable business on a large scale and taking dual factors on general characteristics of farms, 2) Risk
benefits of already established milk co-operatives factors on introduction of infection to farms, 3) Risk
infrastructure and direct market of city areas. A parallel factors on management systems of farms and 4) Risk
milk marketing system is growing rapidly in and factors on exposure of disease.
around each city due to readily available raw milk
market. Earlier research work carried out on bovine Statistical analysis: Data pertaining to prevalence
brucellosis has mostly focused on organized govern- based on milk testing and risk factors were analyzed on
ment farms or farmers under milk co-operatives. These IBM SPSS statistical software version 20.0 using chi
studies did not cover peri-urban milk producers square test (probability at 5% and confidence interval
maintaining good quality animals under intensive at 95% level) as per method described by Snedecor and
system of production and which were reluctant to Cochran [6].
provide necessary support and information. Results and Discussion
The present investigation had been planned to
Herd and animal prevalence: In the present study, an
study bovine brucellosis in dairy herds of peri-urban
overall 67 (33.70%) out of 199 bulk milk samples were
areas using milk-ELISA. found positive for Brucella antibodies on milk-ELISA.
Materials and Methods The present result is in accordance to the previous
reports on herd prevalence of bovine brucellosis based
Ethical approval: The present study was carried out
on milk-ELISA [7-10]. Similarly, an earlier report of
after the necessary permission of institutional ethical
Asfaw et al. [11] also found 100% herd prevalence in
committee.
peri-urban, 30% in intra-urban and 12.5% in inter-
Area, sample and test detail: Six selected cities viz. urban areas with overall herd prevalence of 33.30%. In
Ahmedabad, Anand, Surat, Navsari, Valsad and Vapi a single report from Gujarat, Varasada [12] reported
covering middle and south Gujarat were included in the only 3.53% herd prevalences on tank bulk milk testing
present study. Five peri-urban areas of each city were by milk-ELISA. During the present study, the overall
randomly selected for the present work. From each animal prevalence based on milk-ELISA was 11.90%.
peri-urban area, five farmers following intensive Present finding is in accordance with previous reports
system production with herd size >10 milking animals based on milk tests which reported 10-15% animal
were included in the study. The species (cattle and prevalence [13-15]. Whereas, Patel [16] and Aulakh et
Buffalo) and breed-wise bulk and individual milk al. [17] recorded still higher animal prevalences on
samples at approximately 10 per cent of total milking milk tests with corresponding figures of 28.30 and
animals, were collected for Milk-ELISA. A total of 199 18.26%, respectively. Whereas, few reports from India
bulk and 582 individual milk samples were collected and neighboring country reported animal prevalence
aseptically in 5 ml sterile screw capped plastic sample below 10% [18-2], the animal prevalence (11.90%)
collection vials and kept in insulated ice-box with pre- observed in present study was found higher than a wide
freezed ice-packs during transportation up to area based bovine brucellosis prevalence (6-7%) by
laboratory. The actual numbers of samples collected ELISA conducted by Renukaradhya et al. [1]. Further,
were differed from above mentioned selection criteria the reports from India on sero-prevalence of bovine
due to mixed farming (cattle and buffaloes or different brucellosis also showed more or less similar trend of
breeds of cattle or buffaloes) practice on dairy farms. animal prevalence of bovine brucellosis [22-24]. The
The available facilities of Department of Veterinary species and peri-urban areas-wise herd and animal
Medicine and Department of Veterinary Microbiology, prevalence are presented in Table-1. The prevalence
College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, was found non-significantly higher in cattle than
Anand Agricultural University (AAU), Anand, Livestock buffaloes. Further, it was varied non-significantly
Research Station, NavsariAgricultural University (NAU), between the peri-urban areas. The higher prevalence in
present study may be attributed to highly intensive
Navsari and Regional Animal Disease Investigation
production system and frequent replacement of
Offices (ADIO) of Department of Animal Husbandry
animals without prior testing.
(Ahmedabad and Navsari) were used for present study.
After removal of creamy part by centrifugation, milk Risk factor's analysis: The risk factors showed
samples were transferred to another vials and stored at - significant associations with occurrence of bovine
20ºC, till further use. Brucella indirect ELISA test kits brucellosis were discussed whereas the information of
were procured from VMRD, Inc., U.S.A and the tests distribution of those risk factors had statistically non-
were performed as per the protocol outlined in the user significant association with occurrence of brucellosis
manual at LRS, NAU, Navsari or ADIO, Ahmedabad. are given in respective table.
Veterinary World, EISSN: 2231-0916 510
 Available at www.veterinaryworld.org/Vol.7/July-2014/13.pdf

Table-1: Species-wise and peri-urban area-wise prevalence of bovine brucellosis under intensive system of production.

Type of samples Particular No. of samples No. of positive (%) p value

Bulk milk samples Species Cattle 68 28 (41.20) 0.291
Buffalo 131 39 (29.80)
Peri-urban areas Anand 40 19 (47.50) 0.116
Ahmedabad 34 12 (35.30)
Navsari 33 07 (21.20)
Surat 33 07 (21.20)
Valsad 30 10 (33.30)
Vapi 29 12 (41.40)
Overall 199 67 (33.70)
Individual milk samples Species Cattle 199 27 (13.60) 0.357
Buffalo 383 42 (11.00)
Peri-urban areas Anand 147 23 (15.60) 0.481
Ahmedabad 66 05 (07.60)
Navsari 87 07 (08.00)
Surat 97 11 (11.30)
Valsad 107 13 (12.10)
Vapi 78 10 (12.80)
Overall 582 69 (11.90)

Table-2: Distribution of risk factors on general characteristics of farms and their association with herd prevalence of bovine
brucellosis.

Sr. no. Type of risk factor Bulk milk testing p value

No. of samples (%) No. of positive (%)
1 Herd Type Single 118 (59.30) 41 (34.70) 0.695
Mixed 81(40.70) 26 (32.10)
*
2 Herd Size <25 129 (64.80) 28 (21.70) 0.000
26-50 57 (28.60) 27 (47.40)
51-75 08 (04.10) 07 (87.50)
76-100 01 (00.50) 01 (100.00)
101-125 00 (00.00) 00 (00.00)
126-150 02 (01.00) 02 (100.00)
>150 02 (01.00) 02 (100.00)
4 Type of species Cattle 68 (34.20) 28 (41.20) 0.291
Buffalo 131 (65.80) 39 (29.80)
5 Type of animal Indigenous 155 (77.90) 44 (28.40) 0.012*
Crossbred 44 (22.10) 23 (52.30)
6 Type breed Mahesani 101 (50.80) 35 (34.70) 0.013*
Jafarabadi 18 (09.00) 02 (11.10)
Bunni 10 (05.00) 01 (10.00)
HF crossbred 40 (20.10) 23 (57.50)
Jersey crossbred 04 (02.00) 01 (25.00)
Gir 23 (11.60) 04 (17.40)
Other 03 (01.50) 01 (33.30)
7 Animal SexAll Female 191 (95.90) 62 (32.50) 0.114
Mixed 08 (04.10) 05 (62.50)
8 Owner sex Male 178 (89.40) 58 (32.60) 0.501
Female 021 (10.60 09 (42.90)
9 Owner's education Primary 063 (31.70) 17 (27.00) 0.540
Secondary 066 (33.20) 26 (39.40)
High secondary 039 (19.60) 15 (38.50)
Graduate 024 (12.00) 08 (33.30)
Professional 007 (03.50) 01 (14.30)
10 Owner's age <30 001 (00.50) 01 (100.00) 0.002*
31-40 052 (26.10) 09 (17.30)
41-50 088 (44.20) 30 (34.10)
>50 058 (29.20) 27 (46.60)
11 Knowledge gained Inherited 175 (88.00) 63 (36.00) 0.034*
Self 024 (12.00) 04 (16.70)

Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage * indicates significant at p<0.05

Risk factors on general characteristics of farms: The ciation with occurrence of bovine brucellosis (p=
distribution of 11 risk factors on general characteristics 0.000). Such finding is in accordance with the earlier
of farms and their association with herd prevalence of report of Tun et al. [10] who reported significantly
bovine brucellosis is given in Table-2. The highest higher risk when the herd size is greater than 50
prevalence (87.50%) was observed in a group of herds animals as it was 28.6% for herd size above 50 and only
with herd size between 51-75 animals whereas it was 3.1% for herd size less than 50 animals. Likewise,
the lowest (21.70%) for a group of herds with herd size scientists had also reported significant association of
below 25 animals. Increase in prevalence with increased herd size with prevalence of brucellosis [11, 19, 25-32].
herd size was observed with highly significant asso- On contrary, non-significant association between herd
Veterinary World, EISSN: 2231-0916 511
 Available at www.veterinaryworld.org/Vol.7/July-2014/13.pdf

Table-3: Distribution of risk factors on introduction of infection to farms and management systems of farms and their
association with herd prevalence of bovine brucellosis.

Sr. No. Type of risk factor Bulk milk testing p value

No. of samples (%) No. of positive (%)
A. Risk factors on introduction of infection to farms
1 Vaccination
Routine vaccines 193 (97.00) 66 (34.20) 0.292
Both (Brucella and above) 006 (03.00) 00 (33.30)
2 Breeding methods
AI 126 (63.20) 44 (34.90) 0.205
Natural services 010 (05.00) 01 (10.00)
Mixed 063 (31.80) 22 (34.90)
3 Milking methods
Hand milking 171 (85.90) 51 (29.80) 0.055
Machine milking 021 (10.60) 12 (57.10)
Mixed 007 (03.50) 04 (57.10)
4 Farm replacement
From own farm 006 (03.00) 04 (66.70) 0.350
From known source 008 (04.00) 02 (25.00)
From market 150 (75.40) 50 (33.30)
Mixed 035 (17.60) 11 (31.40)
No 199 (100.00) 67 (33.70)
B. Risk factors on management systems of farms
1 Type of housing system
Loose 001 (00.50) 00 (00.00) 0.257
Tying 186 (93.50) 65 (34.90)
Mixed 012 (06.00) 02 (16.70)
2 Type of floor
Concreted 173 (86.90) 62 (35.80) 0.054
Kaccha 000 (00.00) 00 (00.00)
Other 026 (13.10) 05 (19.20)
3 Level of hygiene at farm
Good 087 (43.70) 31 (35.60) 0.968
Fair 107 (53.80) 34 (31.80)
Poor 005 (02.50) 02 (40.00)
4 Level of waste management
Good 091 (45.70) 35 (38.50) 0.580
Fair 100 (50.30) 30 (30.00)
Poor 008 (04.00) 02 (25.00)
5 Grazing practice
Yes 006 (03.00) 02 (33.30) 0.883
No 193 (97.00) 65 (33.70)
7 Disinfection practice
Yes 006 (03.00) 00 (00.00) 0.061
No 193 (97.00) 67 (33.70)
9 Water system
Tap 034 (17.10) 10 (29.40) 0.906
Under ground 165 (82.90) 57 (34.50)
Surface 000 (00.00) 00 (00.00)
10 Milk and other records
Yes 014 (07.00) 05 (35.70) 0.970
No 185 (93.00) 62 (33.50)

Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage.

size and prevalence of brucellosis was also reported by in crossbred than indigenous animals [23, 36-38]. In
Kebede et al. [33], Tolosa et al. [34] and Chand and this regard, Swai et al. [39-40] reported significant
Chhabra [35]. association of exotic blood with prevalence of
Out of 199 herds, 155 (77.90%) were of indi- brucellosis. Tesfaye et al. [41] also observed higher
genous animals whereas only 44 (22.10%) herds had prevalence in crossbreds than local breed but it was
crossbred animals. But, the prevalence of brucellosis statistically non-significant. The findings of Kebede et
was significantly (p=0.012) higher in herds of cross- al. [33] and Chand and Chhabra [35] reported sero-
bred animals (52.30%) than indigenous animals (28.40%). positivity, independent to breed and species, respec-
The highest prevalence (57.50%) was observed in tively. Only a single report of Karimuribo et al. [42]
herds of Holstein-Frisian crossbreds followed by reported higher prevalence in indigenous cattle than
34.70% for Mahesani buffaloes, 33.30% for other crossbreds.
breed of buffalo, 25.00% for Jersey crossbred, 17.40% During a present study, risk factors related to
for Gir cattle, 11.10% for Jafarabadi buffaloes and the owner's age, sex, education level, experience were studied
lowest (10.00%) in Bunni buffaloes. The difference in first time in Gujarat. The prevalence of brucellosis
prevalences due to breed was also statistically signi- showed increasing trend with increase in age of owner
ficant (p=0.013). The results are in accordance to with an exception of a single herd owned by owners
earlier reports indicated significantly higher prevalence aged below 30 years. The highest prevalence was in
Veterinary World, EISSN: 2231-0916 512
 Available at www.veterinaryworld.org/Vol.7/July-2014/13.pdf

Table-4: Distribution of risk factors on exposure of disease and their association with herd prevalence of bovine brucellosis.

Sr. No. Type of risk factor Bulk Milk Testing p value

No. of samples (%) No. of positive (%)
1 Control of visitors
Yes 035 (17.60) 12 (34.30) 0.797
No 164 (82.40) 55 (33.50)
2 Control of stray animals
Yes 007 (03.50) 03 (42.90) 0.600
No 192 (96.50) 64 (33.30)
3 Washing facilities
Yes 195 (98.00) 66 (33.80) 0.561
No 004 (02.00) 01 (25.00)
4 Protective clothing
Yes 006 (03.00) 03 (50.00) 0.390
No 193 (97.00) 64 (33.00)
5 Awareness of brucellosis
Yes 030 (15.00) 13 (43.30) 0.376
No 169 (85.00) 54 (32.00)
6 Veterinary help in case of abortion
Yes 029 (14.60) 07 (24.10) 0.144
No 170 (85.40) 60 (35.30)
7 Fate of aborted animal
Retain 190 (95.50) 62 (32.60) 0.155
Sale 009 (04.50) 05 (55.60)
Panjarapole 000 (00.00) 00 (00.00)
8 History of abortion
Yes 111 (55.80) 52 (46.80) 0.000*
No 088 (44.20) 15 (17.00)
9 History of retention of placenta
Yes 130 (65.30) 52 (40.00) 0.031*
No 069 (34.70) 15 (21.70)
10 History of still birth
Yes 080 (40.20) 35 (43.80) 0.015*
No 119 (59.80) 32 (26.90)
11 History of repeat breeding
Yes 128 (64.30) 49 (38.30) 0.080
No 071 (35.70) 18 (25.40)
12 History of metritis/endometritis
Yes 086 (43.20) 40 (46.50) 0.003*
No 113 (56.80) 27 (23.90)

Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage.

herds owned by owner's age above 50 years (46.60%) the findings of Tun et al. [10] who reported statistically
followed by prevalence in herds owned by owner's age non-significant effects of the risk factor variables
group of 41-50 years (34.10%) and 31-40 years (17.30 (vaccination, breeding, milking methods and produc-
%). The overall effect of age groups of owner was tion system) concerned with the introduction of the
significant (p=0.002). Further, the prevalence in herds infection into the herd. Vaccination against disease is
owned by owners having inherited knowledge of considered to be a protective factor as reported by
dairying was significantly (p=0.034) higher (36.00%) Azevedo et al. [44]. This was also supported by obser-
than herds owned by owners who gained knowledge of vation of Muma et al. [45] who found negative correlation
dairying by themselves (16.70%). In this regard, Tebug of Brucella vaccine history with prevalence of brucellosis.
et al. [43] reported that higher awareness in farmers Further, unrestricted movement of animals [46] and
about the existence of zoonotic infections and practices purchase of animals for farm replacement or breeding
with above primary education and more than six years [36, 47-48] and removal of sero-positive reactors after
of dairy farming experience. testing [49] are considered to be important risk factors
for introduction of infection.
Risk factors on introduction of infection to farms: A
total of six different risk factors on introduction of Risk factors on management systems of farms:
infection to farms were studied for the first time in Similar to risk factors on introduction of infection to
Gujarat. Of these, distribution of four risk factors and farm, 11 different risk factors were also studied under
their association with herd prevalence of bovine bruc- this group. The distribution of 10 risk factors and their
ellosis is given in Table-3. None of risk factors showed association with prevalence of bovine brucellosis is
significant association with occurrence of bovine given in Table-3. In relation to risk factor on feeding
brucellosis. Risk factors such as quarantine practice practice in herds covered, all herds followed manual
and testing before introduction were not followed in feeding system and therefore, its association with
the herds covered under the study and therefore, occurrence of bovine brucellosis could not be draw out.
statistical significance could not be drawn out. The None of the risk factors had statistical significant
results observed in present study are in accordance to association with occurrence of brucellosis. Though,
Veterinary World, EISSN: 2231-0916 513
 Available at www.veterinaryworld.org/Vol.7/July-2014/13.pdf

keeping good hygiene at dairy farm [26] and zero comparatively higher than overall prevalence of bru-
grazing [39, 50] are considered as a protective factor cellosis. Risk factors like larger herd in close confine-
for brucellosis, unhygienic practices were identified as ment without adequate sheds, type of animal, type of
factors that will facilitate the spread of Brucella breed and knowledge/awareness of dairyman, unrestricted
infections [51]. animal market, replacement without prior testing,
reproductive disorders with absence of their testing are
Risk factors on exposure of disease: A total 15
the important risk factors under the intensive production
different risk factors were covered under this group.
system of peri-urban areas.
Except reproductive disorders, remaining risk factors
were covered for the first time under this study. The Authors' contributions
distribution of 12 different risk factors on exposure of MDP carried out the study, tabulated and analysed the
disease and their association with prevalence of bovine data, drafted the manuscript. PRP helped to draft the
brucellosis is presented in Table-4. In none of the herds, manuscript and approved the final draft. MGP and
provision of calving box and isolation of diseased
ANK helped in sample collection and processing. KKT
animals was in practice. Proper disposal of aborted
helped in data assembling and statistical analysis. ABF
material was followed in all herds. Therefore, statistical
rendered necessary infrastructure facilities and grant
significance of these three risk factors could not be
for purchasing necessary kits and other materials
drawn out. Majority of herds were not having control
required during the study period. All authors read and
over visitors (82.40%) and stray animals (96.50%). It is
approved the final manuscript.
a known fact that restriction over visitors and stray
animals is helpful in reducing spread of infection Acknowledgements
which is further supported by an observation of Tun et The authors are thankful to S. K. Raval, Professor,
al. [10] who found significant increased prevalences Department of Medicine, J. H. Purohit (Retired) and
with poor bio-security measures like control of visitors M. K. Jhala, Professor and Head, Department of
and stray animals.
Microbiology, Veterinary College, AAU, Anand and S.
None of the herd was practicing isolation of
B. Patel, CEO, Amul dairy, Anand for their necessary
diseased animal and providing calving box to down
help and encouragement during the study. Authors are
calver as they were maintaining high density of animals
grateful for support given by all dairy farmers and the
in lesser space due to high market price of each square
help rendered by field veterinarians during the study.
feet of land area in peri-urban areas. It is a fact that the
The present work was carried out as Ph. D. research
shedding of large numbers of organisms occurs during
work of corresponding author who is working at Livestock
10 days after abortion or calving of infected cows is the
most significant feature of bovine brucellosis epi- Research Station, Navsari Agricultural University,
demiology and therefore, provision of calving box to Navsari. Necessary funding for the present work was
down cowers is definitely helpful to reduce the chance mainly made under the plan project of University at
of spread of infection if any [2]. The awareness of LRS, NAU, NAvsari and partly from Department of
brucellosis among dairymen was also reported as Medicine, Veterinary College, Anand Agricultural
significant risk factor [10, 36, 50]. In the present study, University,Anand.
a risk factor such as veterinary help/aid in cases of Competing interests
abortion/still birth showed statistically non-significant
association with prevalence of bovine brucellosis. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
However, scientists had reported the presence of References
adequate veterinary services as protective factors in 1. Renukaradhya, G.J., Isloor, S. and Rajasekhar, M. (2002)
prevalence of brucellosis [25]. Epidemiology, zoonotic aspects, vaccination and
As per Table-4, the risk factors such as history of control/eradication of brucellosis in India. Vet. Microbiol.
abortion, retention of placenta, still birth and metritis/ 90: 183-195.
endometritis had statistically significant effects on 2. FAO (2003) Guidelines for coordinated human and animal
brucellosis surveillance. FAO Animal production and health
prevalence of brucellosis. The results are in accordance paper-156. Rome. p45 (cited from http://ftp.fao.org/ docrep
to the findings of scientists who had reported significant /fao/005/y4723E/y4723E00.pdf). Accessed on 28-08-2013.
association with reproductive disorders like abortion, 3. Radostits, O.M., Gay, C.C., Blood, D.C. and Hinchcliff,
retention of placenta and repeat breeding [17, 35, 43, K.W. (2000) Diseases caused by Brucella spp. Veterinary
44, 50, 52-55]. Some scientists also found higher Medicine: a textbook of the diseases of cattle, sheep, pigs,
goats, and horses, 9th Ed. W.B. Saunders, New York, p867-
prevalence of brucellosis with reproductive disorders 882.
but their association with prevalence was non-significant 4. Batra, H.V., Chand P., Mukherjee, L.G.R. and Sadana, J.R.
[22, 26, 28-29, 33, 56-60]. (1989) Dot-enzyme linked immunosorbent assay for
detection of antibodies in bovine brucellosis. Res. Vet. Sci.
Conclusion 46: 143-146.
5. OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health). (2009) Bovine
It can be concluded that prevalence of bovine brucellosis, Section 2.4.3. In OIE Terrestrial Manual. OIE,
brucellosis in dairy herds maintained under intensive Paris. p165 (Online available on http://www.oie.
system of production in peri-urban areas was int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahm/2.04.03

Veterinary World, EISSN: 2231-0916 514

 Available at www.veterinaryworld.org/Vol.7/July-2014/13.pdf

_BOVINE_BRUCELL.pdf).Accessed on 28-08-2013. Seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis in Haryana by avidin-

6. Snecdor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. (1994) Statistical biotin serum ELISA and its comparison with RBPT and SAT.
Methods. Indian edition (Revised). Oxford and IBH Indian J. Anim. Sci. 82(5): 448-450.
Publishing Co., New Delhi. p439. 24. Priyadarshini, A., Sarangi, L. N., Palai, T. K., Ranabijuli, S.,
7. Lopez, J., Best, A. and Morales, C. (1998) Diagnosis of Panda, H. K. and Mishra, R (2012) Diagnostic tests for sero-
bovine brucellosis in milk by the ring test and ELISA in prevalence of brucellosis in cattle. Indian Vet. J. 89(5): 86-
dairies in the province of Nuble, Chile. Arch. Med. Vet. 87.
30(1):133-138. 25. Al-Majali, A.M., Talafha, A.Q., Ababneh, M.M. and
8. Vanzini, V.R., Aguirre, N.P., Valentini, B. and Echaide, S.T. Ababneh, M.M. (2009) Seroprevalence and risk factors for
(2003) Determination of the quality control limits and bovine brucellosis in Jordan. Vet. Sci. 10(1): 61-65.
adjustment of the cut off point for an indirect ELISA applied 26. Mugizi, D. (2009) Relationship between bovine brucellosis
to the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis milk samples. Rev. and production systems in Kashongi sub-county of
Med. Vet. 84(5): 204-210. Kiruhura-Uganda. Bull. Anim. Health Prod. Africa. 57(3):
9. Gumber, S., Aradhana, Dhand, N.K. and Sandhu, K.S. 209-219.
(2004) Village-level study of bovine brucellosis in Punjab 27. Haileselassie, M., Kalayou, S. and Kyule, M. (2010)
(India) by bulk milk analysis. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 74: 843- Serological survey of bovine brucellosis in barka and arado
844. breeds (Bos indicus) of Western Tigray, Ethiopia. Prev. Vet.
10. Tun, T.N., Tharavichitkul, P., Kreausukon, K. and Tenhagen, Med. 94(½): 28-35.
B. (2007) Bovine brucellosis in dairy cattle in Yangon, 28. Ibrahim, N., Belihu, K., Lobago, F. and Bekana, M. (2010)
Myanmar. In Proceedings: 15th Congress of the Federation Sero-prevalence of bovine brucellosis and its risk factors in
of Asian Veterinary Associations FAVA-OIE Joint Jimma zone of Oromia Region, South-western Ethiopia.
Symposium on emerging diseases, Bangkok, Thailand, 27- Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 42: 35–40.
30 October, 2008. p263-264. 29. Makita, K., Fevre, E.M., Waiswa, C., Eisler, M.C.,
11. Asfaw, Y., Molla, B., Zessin, K.H. and Tegegne, A.A. (1998) Thrusfield, M. and Welburn, S.C. (2011) Herd prevalence of
Cross-sectional study of bovine brucellosis and test bovine brucellosis and analysis of risk factors in cattle in
performance in intra-and peri-urban production systems in urban and peri-urban areas of the Kampala economic zone,
and around Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Bull. Anim. Health Prod. Uganda. BMC Vet. Res. 7: 60-63.
Africa. 46(4): 217-224. 30. Medeiros, M.A.B., Nascif, Junior I.A. and Mathias, L.A.
12. Varasada, R.V. (2003) Seroprevalence of Brucellosis in (2011) Prevalence of bovine brucellosis among milk
cattle, buffaloes and human being in central Gujarat. M.V.Sc. suppliers of a dairy industry in Itirapua, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
thesis submitted to Gujarat Agricultural University, Gujarat, Ars Vet. 27(3): 152-160.
India. p171. 31. Calistri, P., Iannetti, S., Atzeni, M., Bella, C., Schembri, and
13. Singh, G., Sharma, D.R. and Dhand, N.K. (2004) Giovannini, A. (2013) Risk factors for the persistence of
Seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis in Punjab. Indian Vet. bovine brucellosis in Sicily from 2008 to 2010. Prev. Vet.
J. 81: 620-623. Med. 110(3–4): 329–334.
14. Jaianandh, M., Ganesan, P.I., Jayakumar, R. and 32. Lindahl, E., Sattorov, N., Boqvist, S., Sattori, I. and
Senthilkumar, T.M.A. (2006) Bovine brucellosis in certain Magnusson, U. (2014) Seropositivity and risk factors for
districts of Tamilnadu. Indian Vet. J. 83(9): 1025-1026. Brucella in dairy cows in urban and peri-urban small-scale
15. Jadav, P.V., Bhanderi, B.B., Vadaviya, R.A. and Kavani, H.J. farming in Tajikistan. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 46:563–569 .
(2007) Study of prevalence of bovine brucellosis at village 33. Kebede, T., Ejeta, G. and Ameni, G. (2008) Seroprevalence
level by MRT method. Indian J. Environ. Toxicol. 17(2): of bovine brucellosis in smallholder farms in central Ethiopia
40-41. (Wuchale-Jida district). Rev. Med. Vet. 159(1): 3-9.
16. Patel, T.J. (2007) Serological, cultural and molecular 34. Tolosa, T., Bezabih, D. and Regassa, F. (2010) Study on
detection of Brucella infection in bovines including seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis and abortion and
quantification in milk by real time PCR. M.V.Sc. thesis associated risk factor. Bull. Anim. Health Prod. Africa. 58(3):
submitted to Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, 239-244.
India. p105. 35. Chand, P. and Chhabra, R. (2013) Herd and individual animal
17. Aulakh, H.K., Patil, P.K., Sharma, S., Kumar, H., Mahajan, prevalence of bovine brucellosis with associated risk factors
V. and Sandhu, K.S. (2008) A study on the epidemiology of on dairy farms in Haryana and Punjab in India. Trop. Anim.
bovine brucellosis in Punjab (India) using milk-ELISA. Acta Health Prod. 45(6): 1313-1319.
Vet. Brno. 77(3): 393-399 36. Chatterjee, A., De, B.N., Bidyanta, J., Chakraborty, M.,
18. Sharma, R.K., Arun Kumar, Thapliyal, D.C. and Singh, S. P. Mondal, P. and Sen, G.P. (1985) Sero-epidemiological
(2003) Sero-epidemiology of brucellosis in bovines. Indian studies on bovine brucellosis in organized herds in West
J. Anim. Sci. 73(11): 1235-1237. Bengal. Indian J Anim. Sci. 55(4): 249-252.
19. Shafee, M., Masood, R., Ahmad, S. A., Mansoor, A. and 37. Sarumathi, C., Reddy, T.V. and Sreedevi, B. (2003)
Abdul, R. (2011) Prevalence of bovine brucellosis in Serological survey of bovine brucellosis in Andhra Pradesh.
organized dairy farms using milk ELISA in Quetta City, Indian J. Dairy Sci. 56: 408-410.
Balochistan, Pakistan. Vet. Med. Intern. 2011, Article ID 38. Bakhtullah, F.P., Muhammad, S., Basit, A., Khan M. A., Gul,
358950, 3 pages, 2011. doi:10.4061/2011/358950. S., Wazir, I. and Raqeebullah, K.K. (2014) Sero–Prevalence
20. Ali, S., Ali, Q., Abatih, E.N., Ullah, N., Ali, M., Khan, I. of Brucellosis in Cattle in Southern Area of Khyber
and Akhter, S. (2013) Sero-prevalence of Brucella abortus Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Res. J. Vet. Pract. 2(4): 63–66.
among dairy cattle and buffaloes in Pothohar Plateau, 39. Swai, E.S., Mshanga, D., Sanka, N.P. and Marandu, N.H.
Pakistan. Pakistan J. Zool. 45(4): 1041-1046. (2003) Prevalence of bovine brucellosis in smallholder
21. Priyadarshini, A., Sarangi, L. N., Palai, T. K., Panda, H. K., dairying farming area, Moshi, Tanzania. Trop. Anim. Health
Mishra, R and Behera, P. C. (2013) Brucellosis in cattle and Prod. 35: 120-21.
occupationally exposed human beings: a sero-survey in 40. Swai, E.S., Mshanga, D., Sanka, N.P. and Marandu, N.H.
Odisha, India. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 7(4): 3255-3260. (2005) Bull. Anim. Health Prod. Africa. 53(2): 97-105.
22. Dhand, N.K, Gumber, S., Singh, B.B., Aradhana, Bali, M. S., 41. Tesfaye, M.Y., Degefu, M.H., Tadele, T. and Woyesa, M.
Kumar, H., Sharma, D.R., Singh, J. and Sandhu, K.S. (2005) (2012) Bovine brucellosis: serological survey in Guto-Gida
A study on the epidemiology of brucellosis in Punjab (India) district, East Wollega zone, Ethiopia. Global Veterinaria.
using survey toolbox. Rev. Sci. Tech. 24(3): 879-85. 8(2): 139-143.
23. Khurana, S.K., Srivastava, S.K. and Prabhudas, K. (2012) 42. Karimuribo, E., Ngowi, D., Swai, H.A.E.S. and Kambarage,
Veterinary World, EISSN: 2231-0916 515
 Available at www.veterinaryworld.org/Vol.7/July-2014/13.pdf

D.M. (2007) Prevalence of brucellosis in crossbred and brucellosis transmission amongst livestock workers in Yewa,
indigenous cattle in Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural south-western Nigeria. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 84(1): 121-125.
Development. 19(10): Article #148. http://www.lrrd.org/ 52. Rahman, M.S., Faruk, M.O., Her, M., Kim, J.Y., Kang, S.I.
lrrd19/10/kari19148.htmAccessed on 02-05-2014. and Jung, S.C. (2011) Prevalence of brucellosis in ruminants
43. Tebug, S.F. (2013) Factors associated with milk in Bangladesh. Vet. Medicina. 56(8): 379–385.
producer's awareness and practices in relation to 53. Tesfaye, G., Tsegaye, W., Chanie, M. and Abinet, F. (2011)
zoonoses in northern Malawi. Vet World., 6(5): 249-253. Seroprevalence and associated risk factors of bovine
44. Azevedo, S,S., Ferreira, J.S., Neto, J.S., Ferreira, F., Dias, brucellosis in Addis Ababa dairy farms. Trop. Anim. Health
R.A., Amaku, M. and Vasconcellos, S.A. (2011) Association Prod. 43(5): 1001-1005.
between brucellosis and occurrence of abortions in bovine 54. Rahman, M.S., Her, M., Kim, J.Y., Kang, S., Lee, K., Uddin,
from the Espirito Santo State, Southeast region of Brazil. M.J., Chakrabartty, A. and Jung, S.C. (2012) Brucellosis
Brazilian J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 48(3): 215-219. among ruminants in some districts of Bangladesh using four
45. Muma, J.B., Pandey, G.S., Munyeme, M., Mumba, C., conventional serological assays. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res.
Mkandawire, E. and Chimana, H.M. (2012) Brucellosis 6(22):4775-4781.
among smallholder cattle farmers in Zambia. Trop. Anim. 55. Yoon, N.H., Cheo, H.K., Hee, M.S.J., Kim, S.L., Byeong,
Health Prod. 44: 915–920. Y.P., Choi Kyu, J.J. and Wee, S.H. (2012) Impact of bovine
46. Gwida, M., Al Dahouk, S., Melzer, F., Rösler, U., Neubauer, brucellosis eradication programs in the Republic of Korea.
H. and Tomaso, H. (2010) Brucellosis – Regionally Korean J. Vet. Res. 52(1): 19-24.
Emerging Zoonotic Disease? Croat. Med. J. 51: 289-95. 56. Isloor, S., Renukaradhya, G.J. and Rajasekhar, M.A. (1998)
47. Dias, J.A., Müller, E.E., Dias, R.A., Freitas, J.C., Amaku, M., Serological survey of bovine brucellosis in India. Rev. Sci.
Ferreira, F., Silva, M.C.P., Lôbo, J.R., Figueiredo, V.C.F., Tech. 17: 781-785.
Gonçalves, V.S.P. and Ferreira Neto, J.S. (2009) 57. Jeyaprakash, C., Ranjitsingh, A.J.A. and Amuthan, A. (1999)
Epidemiological situation of bovine brucellosis in the state of Isolation of Brucella spp. from indigenous and cross-bred
Paraná, Brazil. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 61(1): 118-21. cows and evaluation of their antibiogram. Indian J. Anim.
48. Oliveira, R.M., Silva, M.L.C.R., Macêdo, M.M.S., Higino, Res. 33: 99-103.
S.S., Paulin, L.M., Alves, C.J., Carvalho, M.G. and Azevedo, 58. Panchasara, H. J. (2007) Sero-epizootiology, experimental
S.S. (2013) Seroepidemiology of bovine leptospirosis and modulation of vaccinal immunity, and economic impact
brucellosis in family farm rural properties in the State of assessment of bovine brucellosis in North Gujarat. Ph.D.
Paraíba, northeastern Brazil. Arq. Inst. Biol. 80(3): 303- thesis submitted to Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada
311. Agricultural University, Gujarat, India. p143.
49. Evangelista, L.S.M. and Goncalves, L.M.F. (2009) Bovine 59. Tedele, T., Mulualem, A. and Gebreyesus, M. (2010) Sero-
brucellosis in the state of Roraima. PUBVET. 3: 2 http:// epidemiological survey of bovine brucellosis and
www.pubvet.com.br/artigos_det.asp?artigo=94). Accessed reproductive health problems in North Gondar zone
28-08-2013. milkshed areas, north western Ethiopia. Bull. Anim. Health
50. Sikder, S., AKMA Rahman, Faruque, M.R., Alim, M.A., Prod. Africa. 58(2): 133-140.
Das, S., Gupta, A.D., Das, B.C., Uddin, M.I. and Prodhan, M. 60. Matope, G., Bhebhe, E., Muma, J.B., Oloya, J.,
(2012) Bovine brucellosis: an epidemiological study at Madekurozwa, R.L., Lund, A. and Skjerve, E. (2011)
Chittagong, Bangladesh. Pak. Vet. J. 32(4): 499-502. Seroprevalence of brucellosis and its associated risk factors
51. Adesokan, H.K., Alabi, P.I., Stack, J.A. and Cadmus, S.I.B. in cattle from smallholder dairy farms in Zimbabwe. Trop.
(2013) Knowledge and practices related to bovine Anim. Health Prod. 43(5): 975–982.

********

Veterinary World, EISSN: 2231-0916 516