CC BY
02023, Scienceline Publication
Worlds Veterinary Journal
World Vet J, 13(1): 191-199, March 25, 2023
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.54203/scil.2023.wvj20
Risk Factors Associated with Brucellosis Seropositivity in Goat Farms of Sing Buri Province, Thailand
Nattanan Thuamsuwan1'2 © , Karoon Chanachai3 , Monaya Ekgatat4 © , Prakit Srisai5 , Tippawon Prarakamawongsa3 , and Theera Rukkwamsuk2
1The Graduate School, Kasetsart University, Pahol YothinRoad, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
2Department of Large Animal and Wildlife Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Saen, Nakhon Pathom 73140, Thailand 3R-FETPV Coordination Unit, National Institute of Animal Health, Department of Livestock Development, Kasetklang, Ladyao, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900, Thailand 4Immunology and Serology Section, National Institute of Animal Health, Department of Livestock Development, Kasetklang, Ladyao, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900, Thailand 5Nakhon Phanom Provincial Livestock Office, Department of Livestock Development, Nakhon Phanom 48000, Thailand
*Corresponding author's Email: theera.r@ku.ac.th ABSTRACT
During 2012 - 2016, goat farms in Sing Buri province were growing rapidly with support from the Thai government. In the following three years (2017-2019), the analysis of brucellosis surveillance data indicated that the seropositivity of brucellosis in goats increased. Therefore, this study attempted to identify possible risk factors associated with brucellosis seropositivity in meat goats raised in Sing Buri province of Thailand. A case-control study was conducted in a random sampling of 72 goat farms in Sing Buri province, Thailand. Questionnaires were used to collect information regarding farm production types, husbandry, goat health management, grazing management, breeding, carcass management, and goat purchasing. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses were used to determine the risk factors of Brucella seropositivity. Results revealed that the most frequent health complaint by the farmers was a stillbirth. Brucella seropositivity at the farm level was 26.4%. The two most probable risk factors for seropositivity included raising goats in a communal pasture and keeping goats with a history of clinical signs associated with brucellosis. In conclusion, approximately 25% of goat farms in Sing Buri province were infected by the bacteria genus Brucella. The farmers were recommended to attentively seek and cull for a brucellosis-suspected goat in their farms using clinical signs or symptoms together with active serosurveillance. Furthermore, communal pasture avoidance would also help prevent the goat from Brucella infection.
Keywords: Brucellosis, Meat goat, Risk factor INTRODUCTION
Brucellosis is a zoonotic infectious disease, known as undulant, Mediterranean, or Malta fever, caused by the bacteria genus Brucella (Xavier et al., 2009). The disease in animals is characterized by abortion or reproductive failure (Samadi et al., 2010). The most common Brucella species that cause infection in goats is Brucella melitensis, which can also infect sheep, cattle, buffalos, swine, dogs, camels, horses, and rodents; or can contaminate their products (Xavier et al., 2009). The economic losses due to brucellosis were 6.8 US$ per cattle, 18.2 US$ per buffalo, 0.7 US$ per sheep, 0.5 US$ per goat, and 0.6 US$ per pig (Singh et al., 2015). Brucellosis in humans most often occurs as a result of drinking raw milk from infected animals (Fuquay, 2011). Humans are accidental hosts, and all age groups can be affected by this disease. Some evidence indicated that brucellosis is an occupational hazard for livestock officers and goat farmers (Te-Chaniyom et al., 2016). Human infections of Brucella melitensis were confirmed in Southern Vietnam (Campbell et al., 2017). The disease in humans may persist as relapse, chronic localized infection, or delayed convalescence (Nimri, 2003). Brucellosis continues to be a major public health concern worldwide. The disease is widely distributed throughout the developing world, considered to be a serious public health problem. Livestock prevalence of brucellosis in 2010 was 8.2% in East Africa, 15.5% in West Africa, 14.2% in South Africa, 13.8% in North Africa, 16.0% in South Asia, and 2.9% in South-East Asia (McDermott et al., 2013). From 2000 to 2009, the seroprevalence of brucellosis in Malaysia was 0.91% among goats and 7.09% among goat farms (Bamaiyi et al., 2015).
Seropositivity risk factors have been reported in different studies (Akhter et al., 2014; Tsegay et al., 2015; Rajala et al., 2016). In Northern Thailand, herd size, reproductive problems, brucellosis test program, source of the new goat, and disinfection in the farm played significant roles in Brucella seropositivity (Kladkempetch et al., 2017). A study in South China demonstrated that introduction in the past 12 months, improperly disposal of sick or dead goats, and poor hygiene in the lambing pen were the potent risk factors associated with Brucella seropositivity on local goat farms (Li et al., 2021).
Sing Buri province is divided into six districts, where all districts raise goats. During 2012-2016, goat farms in Sing Buri province are growing rapidly with support from the Thai government. The Department of Livestock
ISSN 2322-4568
A R
c n
c c
e i
p v
e ft
d :
w
2 2
4
5
6
2
^ O OJ
OO ^
F D
b
e
2 O
3 2 2
0
1 —
G
HH
2 A L
A R
T —
C L E
Development (DLD) launched a nationwide brucellosis surveillance campaign on goats. This campaign monitored goat health status both at the provincial and national levels. From laboratory surveillance data of small ruminant brucellosis in 2013, seroprevalence was 12.1% among farms, 1.4% at the animal level for goats, and 1.6% for sheep (Sagarasaeranee et al., 2016). The previous results showed that after 2013 the seroprevalence seemed to be increasing year by year, which would increase the risk of poor goat production. Brucella could also contaminate the goat products and the environment; therefore, the risk of human infection increase (Te-Chaniyom et al., 2016; Maksimovic et al., 2022). However, no previous study on identifying risk factors of seropositivity of brucellosis in goats was performed in Sing Buri province.
Therefore, this study was designed to investigate possible risk factors associated with brucellosis seropositivity in goat farms raised in Sing Buri province. The expected results could be used to recommend prevention and control measures for brucellosis in goat farms.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Ethical approval
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Kasetsart University (ACKU65-VET-048) approved all procedures in this study. However, the study did not involve animals as an experimental setup. The seropositive (case) and seronegative (control) farms were from the routine measures for the brucellosis surveillance system of the DLD, Thailand. The permission in a verbal form to conduct the study and to use the data was agreed upon by the relevant authorities involved in this study.
Study area
Sing Buri province has six districts (Inburi, Bang Rachan, Mueang, Khai Bang Rachan, Phrom Buri, and Tha Chang). The study area covered six districts of Sing Buri province (Figure 1). The global positioning system (GPS) coordinate of Sing Buri province is 14°53'20.99" N 100°24'25.19" E. The hot season lasts 2 months, from March 6 to May 5, with an average daily high temperature above 36°C. The hottest month of the year in Sing Buri is April, with a temperature range of 27-37°C. The cool season lasts 4.6 months, from August 29 to January 15, with an average daily temperature below 33°C. The coldest month of the year in Sing Buri is December, ranging from 21°C to 32°C. The rainy period of the year lasts for 8.9 months, from March 1 to November 28, with rainfall of at least 13 mm. The month with the most rain in Sing Buri is September, with an average rainfall of 210 mm (Weather Spark, 2022).
Study design
A case-control study between December 2016 and February 2017 was conducted. The case and the control goat farms were from the DLD brucellosis surveillance program. The DLD operated a brucellosis surveillance campaign in meat and dairy goats throughout Thailand. In brief, goats older than 6 months in all farms were tested for Brucella infection using a modified Rose Bengal Test (mRBT; Ferreira et al., 2003) at the provincial laboratory. If serum samples were positive, those serum samples would then be sent to the central laboratory at the National Institute for Animal Health of the DLD for further confirmation using the complement fixation test (CF test) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). When the confirmatory test results were positive, the goats must be culled. Other goats in the same herd of the positive goat had to be re-tested at least three times for the two-month interval. When the confirmatory tests were negative for three consecutive samplings, the test would be performed again after 6 months. When the last tests were negative, the outbreak was declared over. In Thailand, Brucella vaccines were not used to prevent brucellosis in small ruminants.
The laboratory records of brucellosis were critically reviewed for brucellosis testing results in each goat farm. The case was defined as the farm in which at least one goat was diagnosed as positive to the confirmation tests, while the control was defined as the farm without any goats that tested positive to the mRBT three consecutive times for the two-month interval.
Sample size calculation
The study unit was the farm. The sample size was calculated by Stat Calc of Epi Info program (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USA). Out of 156 farms under the brucellosis surveillance program, the sample size required for this study was 72 farms (case = 19; control = 53) to achieve 95% confidence level, 80% power, and an odds ratio of 4.8. All goat farms in the province were listed, then each goat farm was selected by simple random sampling.
Data collection
Face-to-face interview with goat farmers using questionnaires was conducted. The questions concerned with herd management, husbandry, and health care were asked, and relevant information was given by the farmers in charge of
caring for the farm animals. Variables of interest for the herd level were included in the questionnaires. The interview process was performed by a veterinarian.
Data analysis
Descriptive and inferential statistics were applied to identify potential risk factors associated with seropositivity of brucellosis using Stat Calc of Epi Info program (Epi Info™ 7, USA). Bivariate analysis was performed to determine the impact of each variable on seropositivity. If any variables got p < 0.1 in the bivariate analysis (Chi-square test), those variables were recruited into the multiple logistic regression analysis. The odds ratios were used to interpret the risk factors associated with seropositivity in this study.
Figure 1. The map of the study area in Sing Buri province (Left), Thailand. The study site for identification of risk factors associated with seropositivity to goat brucellosis in six districts of Sing Buri province (Right); 1: Muang Sing Buri, 2: Bang Rachan, 3: Khai Bang Rachan, 4: Prom Buri, 5: Tha Chang, 6: Inburi. Source: Wikipedia
RESULTS
Table 1 demonstrates the overall brucellosis seropositivity in 72 goat farms according to the brucellosis surveillance program at the beginning of the study (December 2016). Out of 72 goat farms, Bang Ra Chan district had the highest prevalence (29.17%). Only one goat farm in Prom Buri and one in Tha Chang district were active in their business and were recruited into the study. The farm in Prom Buri was positive, and the farm in Tha Chang district was negative for brucellosis.
Table 2 presents the characteristics of goat farms and management in Sing Buri province. In total, 5,221 goats were raised in all 72 studied farms. All farms raised crossbred meat goats. There were two types of goat farms: fattening and breeding. The average herd size in infected farms was 73 goats/farm (range = 12-600), and in non-infected farms was 48 (range = 8-206). The average number of breeder males (buck) was 1.36 (range = 0-10), and the average number of breeder females (doe) was 35.9 (range = 2-300). The average number of goats categorized by age group in all farms was 18.75 goats/herd (range = 0-200), 16.65 goats/herd (range = 0-99), and 36.68 goats/herd (range = 3-302) for less than 6 months old, 6-12 months-old, and greater than 12 months old, respectively. The floor type of the barn was predominantly a combination of the slatted floor where the goats stayed during the night and the ground floor during the day. The main roughages included leucaena, straw, and para-grasses (Brachiaria mutica, Forsk). Most farms fed their goats with commercially available concentrates and offered the goats some mineral supplements. Most farms used the communal pasture, and only a few farms had their own pastures. Almost all farms consumed the water supply from tap water. For breeding purposes, 20% of the farms shared their bucks with others, while only one farm used artificial insemination.
193
When the farmers found their dead goats, 83% of the farmers buried the carcass on their farms. About half of the farmers sold their goats to other farms, and the most frequent selling method was straight to the buyers on the farm site.
Table 1. Distribution of brucellosis seropositivity of goat farms according to the brucellosis surveillance program in Sing
Buri province, Thailand, in December 2G16
District Number of farms Number of seropositive farms Percentage
Bang Rachan 24 7 29.17
Inburi 29 6 2G.69
Khai Bang Rachan 5 2 4G.GG
Mueang 12 3 25.GG
Phrom Buri 1 1 1GG.GG
Tha Chang 1 G G.GG
Total 72 19 26.39
Table 2. Characteristics of goat farms and management in Sing Buri province, Thailand, between December 2016 and
February 2017
Farm characteristics Seropositive farms Seronegative farms Total
(n = 19) (n = 53) (n = 72)
Farm production
Fattening 19 46 65
Breeding 13 42 55
Average herd size (goat per farm) 73 48 6G
Stall
Cement floor 1 5 6
Ground floor 13 37 5G
Slat floor 17 45 62
Feeding
Leuceana 14 42 56
Straw G 3 3
Grass 16 44 6G
Concentrates 5 23 28
Mineral supplementation 15 47 62
Own pasture 1 7 8
Sharing pasture with other farms 1 3 4
Communal pasture 18 31 49
Water supply
Tap water 18 49 67
Underground water G 5 5
Surface water 2 5 7
River water G 2 2
Breeding
Artificial insemination 1 G 1
Sharing buck with other farms 1 14 15
Sharing doe with other farms G G G
Dead goat management
Bury 18 42 6G
Consumed by farmers G 1 1
Burn G 1 1
Selling production to
Local traders 1 2 3
Other farms 11 31 42
Co-operatives G G G
Selling methods
On-farm site 18 42 6G
By mobile phone G 1G 1G
At the live market 1 3 4
The previous health problems concerning brucellosis are reported in Table 3. In this study, the most serious problems among goat farms included stillbirth, weak kids, abortion, mastitis, and lameness. In seropositive farms, the most complaint of health problems was stillbirth and abortion, while mastitis and stillbirth were the most frequent concerns in seronegative farms.
Twenty possible risk factors associated with brucellosis seropositivity were analyzed using bivariate analysis (Table 4). Farms that had flooding during 2012-2016 tended to have 3.1 times at risk of brucellosis seropositivity, compared with farms that did not have flooding. Farms that shared their bucks with others for mating tended to have 0.1 times at risk of seropositivity when compared with farms that did not share. Farms that had raising experience for more or equal to 60 months compared with farms that had less than 60 months tended to have 0.4 times at risk of seropositivity. Farms with previous health problems related to brucellosis were 5.1 times at risk of seropositivity, compared with farms without previous health problems. In addition, farms that used communal pasture were 12.8 times at risk of seropositivity when compared with farms that did not use it. Two factors were significant risk factors for brucellosis, were raising goats in communal pastures and goats with clinical signs of suspected brucellosis. In addition, goats that were not confined only in the barn tended to be 6.5 times at risk of seropositivity compared to goats confined in the barn.
For logistic regression analysis, the six important risk factors were recruited in the analysis, which was raising goat in the communal pasture, sharing bucks with other farms, quarantining newly introduced goats before entering the herd, receiving goats with previous health problems related to brucellosis, raising experience; and flooding occurrence. The results indicated that raising goats in communal pastures and the farm receiving goats with previous health problems related to brucellosis were most likely to be the significant risk factors for brucellosis seropositivity (Table 5).
Table 3. Previous health problem (clinical signs/symptoms) in relation to brucellosis among goat farms in Sing Buri province, Thailand between December 2016 and February 2017
Signs/symptoms Seropositive (n = 19) Seronegative (n = 53) Total (n = 72)
No. (%) No. (%) No. (%)
Stillbirth 6 31.6 6 11.3 12 16.7
Weak kid 2 10.5 9 17 11 15.3
Abortion 5 26.3 5 9.4 10 13.9
Mastitis 3 15.8 7 13.2 10 13.9
Lameness 2 10.5 4 7.6 6 8.3
Infertility 2 10.5 3 5.7 5 6.9
Arthritis 1 5.3 2 3.8 3 4.2
Metritis 1 5.3 2 3.8 3 4.2
Retained placenta 1 5.3 1 1.9 2 2.8
Orchitis 0 0 1 1.9 1 1.4
No: Number
Table 4. Bivariate analysis on possible risk factors for brucellosis seropositivity in goat farms, Sing Buri province, Thailand, between December 2016 and February 2017
Factors Brucellosis test Crude OR 95 %CI ■ p-value
Seropositive Seronegative Lower Upper
Flooding occurrence Yes No 8 11 10 43 3.1 1.0 9.8 0.06
Raising experience Low, <60 months High, > 60 7 12 33 20 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.06
Previous case of brucellosis Yes 4 0
on a farm during 20122015 No 15 53 NA* 2.0 NA 0.003
Raising goats and sheep on a farm Yes No 1 18 1 52 2 .9 0.2 48.6 0.46
Previous health problems related to brucellosis Yes No 9 10 8 45 5.1 1.6 16.4 0.009
Herd size High, > 73 goat Low, < 73 goat 10 9 18 35 2.2 0.7 6.3 0.15
Purchase into the farm Yes No 11 8 38 15 0.5 0.2 1.6 0.27
Purchase out of the farm Yes No 19 0 41 12 NA 1.1 NA 0.02
Quarantine new goats before introducing Yes No 0 19 7 46 0 0 1.9 0.10
Testing brucellosis before Yes 9 20 1.5 0.5 4.3 0.46
introducing No 10 33
Sharing bucks with other Yes 1 15 0.1 0.02 1.1 0.05
195
farms No 18 38
Using communal pasture Yes No 18 1 31 22 12. 8 1.6 102.9 0.004
Confine only in the barn No Yes 18 1 39 14 6.5 0.8 53.0 0.10
Water canal Yes No 2 17 5 48 1.1 0.2 6.4 0.89
Contact with other goats Yes 4 8 1.5 0.3 6.6 0.55
outside the farm No 15 45
Contact with other animals Yes 12 41 0.5 0.2 1.6 0.24
outside the farm No 7 12
Cement floor Yes No 1 18 5 48 0.5 0.1 4.9 1.00
Ground floor Yes No 13 6 37 16 0.9 0.3 2.9 0.91
Disinfectant Yes No 15 4 39 14 1.3 0.4 4.7 0.76
Vehicle control Yes No 17 2 38 15 3.4 0.7 16.3 0.21
*NA: Not available for calculation; OR: Odds ratio
Table 5. Multiple logistic regression analysis on possible risk factors for brucellosis seropositivity in goat farms, Sing
Buri province, Thailand, between December 2016 and February 2017
Factors Crude OR Adjusted OR 95%CI
Lower Upper
Using communal pasture 12.8 14.8 1.5 140.6
Sharing bucks with other farms 0.1 0.1 0 1
Quarantine new goats before introducing them to the farm 0 0 0 >1x1012
Previous health problems in relation to brucellosis 5.1 6.3 1 .3 30.6
Raising experience 0.4 2.9 0.7 12.2
Flooding occurrence 3.1 3 0.6 14.6
OR: Odds ratio, CI: Confidence interval
DISCUSSION
Sing Buri Province is located in the central part of Thailand, which is one of the most populated areas for goat farming. The farms are predominantly small-holder farms, where their raising practices might not be appropriate. However, the Provincial Livestock Office of the DLD assisted these farmers in disease treatment, prevention, and control. For brucellosis, the primary goal of the DLD was to eradicate this disease from goat farms. Therefore, a test-and-slaughter policy was implemented (Sagarasaeranee et al., 2016). The study was not designed to determine the seroprevalence; however, 26.39% of the studied farms were seropositive to Brucella infection. This seropositivity rate was higher than the seroprevalence of 16.67% reported by Kladkempetch et al. (2017) in Chiang Mai, the northern province of Thailand, and even higher than in Nakhon Si Thammarat, the southern province of Thailand (Te-Chaniyom et al., 2016). In a recent study in Ethiopia, the herd level seroprevalence of goat brucellosis was 46.61% (Teshome et al., 2022), which was rather high, compared to the present study. The underlying reason for the high prevalence was that no actual control plans for brucellosis were strictly implemented in some study areas. The Brucella infection could be expected to be relatively high if the farm had no effective control measures.
In this study stillbirth, weak kids, abortion, mastitis, and lameness were the most noticeable signs or symptoms associated with Brucella infection. Rerkyusuke et al. (2022) studied the clinical evidence and risk factors for reproductive disorders in meat goats in Northeastern Thailand and indicated that abortion with arthritis, orchitis, repeat breeder, sterile, and week kids have occurred in goat herds seropositive to either Q fever or chlamydiosis, or brucellosis. Brucella infection in goats is important in female reproductive disorders, especially abortion. In the study of Samadi et al. (2010) in Jordan, the prevalence rate of Brucella infection among aborted sheep and goats was 27.1%. It is also evident that Brucella was detected in a higher frequency in the samples such as blood, milk, supra mammary lymph nodes, udder tissue, aborted fetal organ, and placenta collected from the aborted animals than those samples collected from asymptomatic animals (Maksimovic et al., 2022).
Sing Buri Province is one of the central-plains provinces in Thailand that has been affected by flooding during the monsoon season from July to October every year. During the flooding period, goat farmers had to rescue their goats to communal places where goats from several farms could most likely be contacted with each other. The flood situation might lead to the situation of poor management and overcrowding. It has been reported that a lack of separation of young, pregnant, or sick animals could increase the likelihood of Brucella seropositivity (Natesan et al., 2021). This might be one of the possible reasons why raising goats in a flooding area tended to increase the risk of Brucella
196
seropositivity in this study. When a buck was used in an infected farm, it could transmit the infection to other farms. In this study, sharing bucks with other farms for mating showed an increased risk of seropositivity. In Thailand, it has been common for goat farmers to share their bucks for breeding purposes. The infected bucks could potentially be a source of disease transmission among goat farms (Te-Chaniyom et al., 2016; Rerkyusuke et al., 2022). This study demonstrated that farms with a longer period of goat farming, more than 5 years, were less likely to be seropositive to brucellosis. Farmers who have owned their farms for a longer time might have more concerns about brucellosis and might take action on prevention and control according to the guidance of the DLD officers. While relatively new farmers might have fewer concerns and might pay less attention to the brucellosis surveillance provided by the DLD. It could be noted that education and awareness of goat farmers play a key role in the effectiveness of brucellosis prevention and control (Natesan et al., 2021). Since the DLD has implemented the test and culling policy for goat brucellosis for several years, the seropositive farms were expectedly to decline yearly. The decline of Brucella infection depending largely on the testing and culling measures has been reported by Rerkyusuke et al. (2022). It could also be implied that farms that did not participate in the annual brucellosis testing and culling would most likely be seropositive (Rerkyusuke et al., 2022).
In this study, goat farms with previous health problems related to brucellosis, particularly reproductive problems, had more likely to be Brucella seropositive. This finding agreed with other studies (Samadi et al., 2010; Boukary et al., 2013; Kladkempetch et al., 2017). Boukary et el. (2013) found that the prevalence rate of Brucella seropositivity increased with the occurrence of abortion on the farm. In their study, farms with females that aborted among the animals had 4.2 times at risk for Brucella seropositive compared with the farms that did not have an abortion. Samadi et al. (2010) indicated that the number of Brucella melitensis cases is rather high among aborted animals. Likewise, Kladkempetch et al. (2017) found that reproductive problems significantly depended on Brucella seropositivity in goat farms. Teshome et al. (2022) also reported that a history of reproductive problems was a potential risk factor for the prevalence of brucellosis in goats in the Borana zone of Ethiopia. Farms with a previous history of reproductive problems closely related to brucellosis should be seriously monitored for the reservoir animals within the farm. Regular testing and culling measures could be helpful to completely eradicate the disease from the farm.
In addition, the present finding showed that farms that used communal pasture had an increased risk of seropositivity. The pasture-sharing practice could increase the potential for exposure to Brucella spp. in a contaminated environment or to the secretion of infected goats that share the same pasture (Reviriego et al., 2000). Samadi et al. (2010) provided evidence that grazing at a common pasture was a significant risk factor positively associated with brucellosis seropositivity. In Thailand, most goat farmers were small-scale holders. To reduce the feed costs, it was common for the farmers to share the communal pastures with others, for both small and large ruminants. Without any precautions, the pasture could be contaminated with Brucella spp., which could then be transmitted to other animals during grazing. In addition, the goats from different farms could have direct contact with each other, which was prone to receive the bacteria from the infected ones. From the logistic regression analysis results in this study, raising goats in communal pastures and the farm receiving goats with previous health problems related to brucellosis were most likely to be the significant risk factors for brucellosis seropositivity. Some other interesting risk factors for Brucella seropositivity were identified at the herd level. In India, brucellosis prevalence increased due to the frequent purchase of goats with an unknown background of brucellosis on the farm (Natesan et al., 2021). In Thailand, Te-chaniyom et al. (2016) found that goat farms that have dogs and/or rats on the farm were 5.12 times at risk of Brucella seropositive. Dogs and cats might spread the bacteria within the farm, and probably between farms if the dogs and cats were roaming freely.
CONCLUSION
Brucella spp. infected about 25% of goat farms in Sing Buri province; hence brucellosis was still a problem in goat production in Sing Buri province. The transmission of the disease could be reduced when the farmers carefully seek a suspected brucellosis goat using clinical signs/symptoms together with active serosurveillance. If any goats developed signs/symptoms of a case definition, most likely related to reproductive problems, or got seropositive by the test, they should be immediately culled by proper methods. Avoiding communal pastures or, if not possible, carefully managing the pasture with others should be considered to alleviate the risk of exposure to Brucella reservoir goats or contaminated pastures. Further studies on goat farmers' knowledge, attitude, and practice on communal pasture-sharing practices are also necessary to reduce goat brucellosis transmission in risky locations.
DECLARATIONS
Authors' contributions
Karoon Chanachai, Monaya Ekgatat, Tippawon Prarakamawonga, and Theera Rukkwamsuk conceived, designed, and supervised the project. Nattanan Thaumsuwan executed the experiment and analyze the data. Nattanan
Thuamsuwan, Prakit Srisai, and Theera Rukkwamsuk interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript for intellectual content. Theera Rukkwamsuk and Nattanan Thuamsuwan critically revised the manuscript and all authors approved the final version. In addition, all authors had full access to all data in the study and took responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data analysis. All authors checked and approved the results and the final version of the manuscript before publication.
Competing interests
The authors certified that there is no conflict of interest. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the Field Epidemiology Training Program for Veterinarians (FETPV), Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services, Department of Livestock Development, Thailand, for financial support of this study. This research is also supported in part by the Graduate Program Scholarship from the Graduate School, Kasetsart University. The staff of the Sing Buri Provincial Livestock Office and District Livestock Office in Sing Buri Province for their technical help during a farm visit and data collection. The National Institute of Animal Health (NIAH) is acknowledged for the laboratory test. The goat farmers are also thanked for their cooperation.
Ethical consideration
The authors declared that this studied data had not been submitted previously for publication. The manuscript was original without plagiarism. The authors had scientifically conducted the research. Data were analyzed and taken care of for their fabrication and/or falsification. All authors agreed to publish the results.
Funding
The study was funded by the Graduate Program Scholarship, Graduate School of Kasetsart University, Thailand. Availability of data and materials
The authors declare that they will prepare all the necessary data for the study upon reasonable request. REFERENCES
Akhter L, Islam MA, Das S, Khatun MM, and Islam MA (2014). Seroprevalence of brucellosis and its associated risk factors in sheep and goat in the farms and slaughterhouses in Mymensingh, Bangladesh. Microbes and Health, 3: 25-28. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.3329/mh.v3i1.19778
Bamaiyi PH, Hassan L, Khairani-Bejo S, Zainal Abidin M, Ramlan M, Adzhar A, Abdullah N, Hamidah NHM, Norsuhanna MM, and Hashim SN (2015). The prevalence and distribution of Brucella melitensis in goats in Malaysia from 2000 to 2009. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 119(3-4): 232-236. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/i.prevetmed.2015.02.001
Boukary AR, Saegerman C, Abatih E, Fretin D, Alambédji-Bada R, De Deken R, Harouna HA, Yenikoye A, and Thys E (2013). Seroprevalence and potential risk factors for Brucella spp. infection in traditional cattle, sheep, and goats reared in urban, periurban, and rural areas of Niger. PLOS One, 8(12): e83175. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1371/iournal.pone.0083175
Campbell JI, Lan NPH, Phuong PM, Chau LB, Trung Pham Duc, Guzmán-Verri C, Ruiz-Villalobos N, Minh TPT, Muñoz Álvaro PM, Moreno E et al. (2017). Human Brucella melitensis infections in southern Vietnam. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 23: 788-790. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/i.cmi.2017.06.028
Ferreira AC, Cardoso R, Travassos Dias I, Mariano I, Belo A, Rolao Preto I, Manteigas A, Pina Fonseca A, and Correa De Sá MI (2003). Evaluation of a modified Rose Bengal test and an indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the diagnosis of Brucella melitensis infection in sheep. Veterinary Research, 34(3): 297-305. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1051/vetres:2003005
Fuquay JW (2011). Pathogen in milk / Brucella spp. Encyclopedia of dairy sciences, 2nd Edition. pp. 31-39. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374407-4.00389-7
Kladkempetch D, Somtua N, Maktrirat R, Punyapornwithaya V, and Sathanawongs A (2017). Seroprevalence and factors affecting brucellosis in goats in Chiang Mai Province. Veterinary Integrative Sciences, 15(2): 99-107. Available at: https://he02.tci-thaii o. org/index. php/vis/article/view/145932
Li Y, Tan D, Xue S, Shen C, Ning H, Cai C, and Liu Z (2021). Prevalence, distribution and risk factors for brucellosis infection in goat farms in Ningxiang, China. BMC Veterinary Research, 17: 39. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-021-02743-x
Maksimovic Z, Jamakovic A, Semren O, and Rifatbegovic M (2022). Molecular detection of Brucella spp. in clinical samples of seropositive ruminants in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology, and Infectious Diseases, 86: 101821. DOI: https://www.doi. org/10.1016/j. cimid.2022.101821
Map of Sign Buri Provine. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sing Buri province
McDermott J, Grace D, and Zinsstag J (2013). Economics of brucellosis impact and control in low-income countries. Revue Scientifique et Technique, 32: 249-261. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.20506/rst.32.1.2197
Natesan K, Kalleshamurthy T, Nookala M, Yadav C, Mohandoss N, Skariah S, Sahay S, Shome BR, Kumar ORV, Rahman H et al. (2021). Seroprevalence and risk factors for brucellosis in small ruminant flocks in Karnataka in the Southern Province of India. Veterinary World, 14: 2855-2862. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2021.2855-2862
Nimri LF (2003). Diagnosis of recent and relapsed cases of human brucellosis by PCR assay. BMC Infectious Diseases, 3: 5. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-3-5
Rajala EL, Grahn C, Ljung I, Sattorov N, Boqvist S, and Magnusson U (2016). Prevalence and risk factors for Brucella seropositivity among sheep and goats in a peri-urban region of Tajikistan. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 48: 553-558. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s11250-015-0992-3
Rerkyusuke S, Lerk-u-suke S, and Sirimalaisuwan A (2022). Clinical evidence and risk factors for reproductive disorders caused by bacterial infections in meat goats in Northern Thailand. Veterinary Medicine International, 2022: 1877317. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1155/2022/1877317
Reviriego FJ, Moreno MA, and Domínguez L (2000). Risk factors for brucellosis seroprevalence of sheep and goat flocks in Spain. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 44(3-4): 167-173. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/s0167-5877(00)00108-2
Sagarasaeranee O, Kaewkalong S, Sujit K, and Chanachai K (2016). Seroprevalence of brucellosis in small ruminants in Thailand, 2013. Outbreak, Surveillance and Investigation Reports, 9(4): 7-10. Available at: http: //www. osirjournal.net/index. php/o sir/article/view/8 8
Samadi A, Ababneh MMK, Giadinis ND, and Lafi SQ (2010). Ovine and caprine brucellosis (Brucella melitensis) in aborted animals in Jordanian sheep and goat flocks. Veterinary Medicine International, 2010: 458695. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.4061/2010/458695
Singh BB, NK Dhand, and JPS Gill (2015). Economic losses occurring due to brucellosis in Indian livestock populations. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 119(3-4): 211-215. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.03.013
Te-Chaniyom T, Geater AF, Kongkaew W, Chethanond U, and Chongsuvivatwong V (2016). Goat farm management and Brucella serological test among goat keepers and livestock officers, 2011-2012, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, southern Thailand. One Health, 2: 126-136. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2016.08.001
Teshome D, Sori T, Banti T, Kinfe G, Wireland B, and Alemayehu G (2022). Prevalence and risk factors of Brucella spp. in goats in Borana pastoral area, Southern Oromia, Ethiopia. Small Ruminant Research, 206: 106594. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j. smallrumres.2021.106594
Tsegay A, Tuli G, Kassa T, and Kebede N (2015). Seroprevalence and risk factors of brucellosis in small ruminants slaughtered at Debre Ziet and Modjo export abattoirs, Ethiopia. The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries, 9: 373-380. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.3855/jidc.4993
Weather spark (2022). Climate and average weather year round in Sing Buri, Thailand. Available at: https://weatherspark.com/y/113477/Average-Weather-in-Sing-Buri-Thailand-Year-Round
Xavier MN, Costa ÉA, Paixao TA, and Santos RL (2009). The genus Brucella and clinical manifestations of brucellosis. Ciencia Rural, 39(7): 2252-2260. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-84782009005000167
199
