2000
DOI: 10.1023/a:1005231514467
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Untitled

Abstract: A study between August 1995 and December 1997 included 343 dairy cattle on 20 farms in the Dar es Salaam region and 2289 zebu cattle on 39 bomas in the Lugoba area (coast region). The aim was to establish the prevalence of bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) and bovine brucellosis (Brucella abortus). In the single intradermal tuberculin test (SIT), 0.9% (3/343) of the animals in Dar es Salaam tested positive and 1.2% (4/343) were doubtful. Positive reactors were found in 10% (2/20) of the farms. In the L… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

2
5
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
2
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The low BTB prevalence (<1.0% for camels and goats, and 2.0% for cattle) in our study was comparable with the reports from different regions of Tanzania: 0.9% (Cleaveland et al 2007), 0.7% (Weinhäupl et al 2000), 1.3% (Shirima et al 2003), 0.2% (Jiwa et al 1997), Uganda 1.3% (Inangolet et al 2008), 1.4% (Oloya et al 2006), and Ethiopia 0.9% (Tschopp et al 2010). However, various other results were reported from Pakistan (2.4% in goats; Javed et al 2010), Eritrea (14.5% in cattle; Omer et al 2001), Zambia (6.8% in cattle; Munyeme et al 2009), Tanzania (13.2% in cattle; Kazwala et al 2001), and from cattle in different regions of Ethiopia: 46.8% (Ameni et al 2003), 19% (Shitaye et al 2006), 11% (Ameni and Erkihun 2007), 9.7% (Fetene and Kebede 2009), and 11.6% (Regassa et al 2010).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The low BTB prevalence (<1.0% for camels and goats, and 2.0% for cattle) in our study was comparable with the reports from different regions of Tanzania: 0.9% (Cleaveland et al 2007), 0.7% (Weinhäupl et al 2000), 1.3% (Shirima et al 2003), 0.2% (Jiwa et al 1997), Uganda 1.3% (Inangolet et al 2008), 1.4% (Oloya et al 2006), and Ethiopia 0.9% (Tschopp et al 2010). However, various other results were reported from Pakistan (2.4% in goats; Javed et al 2010), Eritrea (14.5% in cattle; Omer et al 2001), Zambia (6.8% in cattle; Munyeme et al 2009), Tanzania (13.2% in cattle; Kazwala et al 2001), and from cattle in different regions of Ethiopia: 46.8% (Ameni et al 2003), 19% (Shitaye et al 2006), 11% (Ameni and Erkihun 2007), 9.7% (Fetene and Kebede 2009), and 11.6% (Regassa et al 2010).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Reports from the literature suggest a very variable brucellosis seroprevalence at individual and herd-level across study regions. Estimates include animal-level seroprevalences of 20.2% in Sudan [7], between 0.3% and 8.2% in Eritrea [33], 12.3% in Tanzania [34], 6.6% in Chad [26], 3.3% in the Central African Republic [35], 14.1% to 28.1% in Zambia [36]. At the herd/unit level estimates range from 2.4% and 46.1% under different husbandry systems in Eritrea [33] and in Zambia from 46.2% to 74% across study areas [36].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The majority of these studies, which were often conducted purposely, were carried out in parastate farms and in indigenous traditional cattle herds. Surveys carried out in the Eastern zone and in the dairy sector in Tanzania revealed prevalence ranges from 2.2% in small scale (1–10 animals) to 7.6% in large-scale (>30 animals) and 12.3% in pastoral sector, respectively [8, 9]. Reports from individual dairy cattle in Northern Tanzania showed low prevalence (<4%) compared to traditional cattle (15%) in the same zone [6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%