Goat farm management and Brucella serological test among goat keepers and livestock officers, 2011–2012, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, southern Thailand

Abstract

Brucellosis, a zoonotic disease particularly affecting goats, emerged in Thailand in 2003, resulting in both an occupational hazard for goat keepers and livestock officers, and production losses. Farm management practices have been identified as risk factors associated with Brucella sero-positivity in many studies. Our finding in this study should be considered in order to strengthen the system of biosecurity control in farm animals as one health approach. The objectives of the study were to describe the distribution of potential risk factors by types of goat farms and to document the prevalence of human Brucella sero-positivity among goat keepers and livestock officers in Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand.A cross-sectional study was conducted from September to December 2012. The study population included three types of goat farms: standard, community enterprise and private goat farms that were located in Nakhon Si Thammmarat Province in southern Thailand. Information on whether the farm had any Brucella sero-positivity goats since 2011 was retrieved from the local livestock office records. Information on farming management was also traced back to 2011. Field researchers collected information from goat keepers of the selected farms using a structured questionnaire. Goat keepers on all farms pre-identified (January to June 2012) as having had at least one positive goat were considered to have been exposed. Goat keepers on a random sample of farms having all goats with negative results were considered to be unexposed. Venous blood samples were collected from goat keepers exposed and unexposed and from livestock officers and the samples were tested by IgG ELISA. Statistical analysis was done under the complex survey design in R software.Fourteen standard farms, 66 community enterprise farms and 68 private farms participated in the study; 82.4% (122/148) used public pasture and 53.4% (79/148) shared breeder goats with other farms. Farm management practices corresponding to pre-identified risk factors were more common in private farms. Large herd size (≥ 51 goats) and having dogs and/or rats on the farm were significantly associated with Brucella infection in animals (P < 0.05). Similar proportions of goat keepers in positive goat farm and livestock officers were positive for Brucella antibody (8.3% and 8.8% respectively).Several goat farming management practices in the study area may increase the risk of Brucella infection in animals. Livestock officers in the area have a high risk of being infected with Brucella. Improving goat farm biosecurity practices in needed to reduce the risk of brucellosis in this area.

Seropositivities against brucellosis, coxiellosis, and toxoplasmosis and associated factors in pregnant women with adverse pregnancy outcomes: A cross-sectional study

“…This was a similar finding in animal that the seroprevalence of animal coxiellosis and brucellosis in Thailand were low as reported by previous studies (3.9% and 1.5%, respectively) [25,44]. In contrast, previous studies conducted among people having a livestock-related occupation in Thailand found that the seroprevalences of coxiellosis and brucellosis were 42.8% and 8.8%, respectively [44,45]. This may be due to the fact that the women participating in our study were not in animal-related occupations conferring a higher risk for the studied diseases.…”

“…Very low seroprevalences of coxiellosis and brucellosis among pregnant women were found in our study (1.9% and 1.0%, respectively). This was a similar finding in animal that the seroprevalence of animal coxiellosis and brucellosis in Thailand were low as reported by previous studies (3.9% and 1.5%, respectively) [25,44]. In contrast, previous studies conducted among people having a livestock-related occupation in Thailand found that the seroprevalences of coxiellosis and brucellosis were 42.8% and 8.8%, respectively [44,45].…”

Risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and seroprevalence for brucellosis in pregnant women exposed to goats or raw goat products in southern Thailand: a prospective cohort study

“…The low seroprevalence of brucellosis among pregnant women in our study was slightly lower than studies from Yemen [44] and Pakistan [20] in which the study participants were asymptomatic pregnant women. However, our finding was lower when compared with studies conducted among slaughterhouse workers in Pakistan (21.7%) and goat farmers and livestock officers in Thailand (8.3–8.8%) [45, 46].…”

Geographic Distribution of Households with Goats and Women’s Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes and Perceptions of Healthcare Providers Toward Risk of Exposure to Goats or Their Raw Products in Pregnant Women

“…27,28 However, the perception levels differed according to the age and work experience of the healthcare providers. 24,25 Raw milk was considered to be more risky for pregnant women than raw meat by the healthcare providers in our study, a finding which was similar to a previous study which assumed a lack of healthcare providers' knowledge of the risk factors of disease transmission and barriers to counseling pregnant women. 29 Cues to action for risk screening, particularly education concerning risk exposure and notification of warning messages, was the most common reason given for an intention to do risk screening among the healthcare providers.…”

“…[22][23][24] Previous studies have reported that pregnant women living in the vicinity of goat farms were at the same risk as the goat farmers of contracting zoonotic infections from a contaminated environment, particularly those living in endemic areas of those diseases. 6,25 The high level of healthcare providers' intention to do risk screening for exposure to goats or raw goat products during pregnancy in our study indicated that the healthcare providers considered themselves to have a formal role in health promotion and prevention and agreed that recognizing, diagnosing and treating zoonotic diseases among people at risk was an important part of their work. 26 A previous study conducted in the United States of America showed that the healthcare providers rarely asked about a history of animal exposure when they met their patients.…”