Printer Friendly

Eimeria infection in calves under local farming system in and around Asella, Oromia regional state, Ethiopia.

ABSTRACT

Bovine coccidiosis is one of the most common livestock diseases worldwide, and usually affects cattle under one-year-old. High infection rates occur from environments that were already contaminated with infected animals. A study on the prevalence, species and risk of occurrence of Eimeria species in calves was conducted at Asella, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. Management systems, breed, age, sex, and site were considered as variables for the surveillance. For this, fecal samples were collected from 384 randomly selected calves of age less than or equal to 12 months. Sporulation was applied at room temperature for 10-14 days. The flotation technique was applied on fecal samples and these were examined using direct microscopic examination to detect presence of Eimeria species. Eimeria oocysts weredetected in 72.4% of the total samples with ranges of 68-100% prevalence in all factors considered. Ten different Eimeria species were identified: E. bovis (44.5%), E. zuernii (26.3%), E. auburnensis (10.9), E. canadensis (9.4%), E. ellipsoidalis (5.7%), E. subspherica (6.5%), E. cylindrical (3.1%), E. alabamensis (2.6%), E. wyomingensis (2.6%) and E. bukidnonensis (2.1%) in decreasing order of prevalence. Of the 278 positive calves, 52.2% were infected with single species, while 47.8% were infected with 2-4 of identified species. Significantly lower prevalence in calves fed colostrums (71.2%) than those not fed colostrum (100%) ([chi square] = 6.3; p <0.05) were observed in early birth. However, no statistical association in infection was observed within all other risk factors considered (p >0.05). Infection with one or more species was found to be insignificant in sex, feeding system, and cleaning frequency (p >0.05). The present finding showed the role of early colostrum feeding in a remarkable reduction of coccidiosis. However, the majority of assessed factors had a great contribution for the contamination and maintenance of Eimeria on the farm and its primes at 68.4%-100%, with high risk of infection to subsequent calves. Moreover, the occurrence of infection, with single (52.2%) to multiple of four (1.4%) pathogenic Eimeria spp. in positive cases, indicated the downside of substandard management systems, making calves prone to subclinical cases thus hampering growth and health, with considerable economic losses. Therefore, early feeding with sufficient amount of colostrum, practicing good management in calves and implementation of proper hygienic measures in their environments should be recommended to reduce direct and indirect economic losses from the infection.

Key words: Eimeria, epidemiology, prevalence, calves, infection, sporulated oocyst, Asella

INTRODUCTION

Bovine coccidiosis is one of the most common livestock diseases worldwide and usually affects cattle under one-year-old. It is occasionally seen in yearlings and even adults, especially if massive infections are acquired [1, 2]. It is a protozoal infection caused by the Eimeria genus of several species, which comprises E. bovis, E. zuernii, E. ellipsoidalis, E. cylindrica, E. subspherica, E. canadensis, E. alabamensis, and E. auburnensis in several classes of livestock, particularly in dairy calves [2]. The Eimeria species cause disease primarily in animals up to two years old and it is particularly common in calves between three weeks and six months of age [2]. Oral-fecal transmission in a contaminated environment having sporulated oocysts is the most common infection route. Usually, the oocysts that pass through the feces of infected animals require appropriate environmental conditions that favor sporulation.

Dairy environments with high temperatures prevent them from acting as a source of infection [3]. High infection rate occurs when animals are placed in environments contaminated by infected animals, which happens either indoors from bedding or outdoors around drinking or feeding troughs. However, not all coccidian species cause disease. The two most common pathogenic species are E. bovis and E. zuernii [4] but E. alabamensis, E. auburnensis, and E. wyomingensis may also cause disease in calves [5].

The diagnosis of the disease involves clinical symptoms, post-mortem examination, scrapings of the intestinal mucosa, fecal examination, laboratory sporulation test, and morphological characteristic according to availability [2, 3]. A few studies were conducted in the central part of Ethiopia with 68.1% of calves reported with coccidiosis [6] and 24.9% of cattle infected in a retrospective laboratory report [7]. However, the epidemiological status of Eimeria and the risk of infection in calves managed under traditional farming systems at Asella is not yet known. Hence, this study aimed at performing an epidemiological survey of Eimeria species in calves at Asella.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area

The study was conducted in Arsi Zone of Oromia Regional state, in and around Asella town located 175 km from Addis Ababa, south east of Oromia Original State, Ethiopia. The agro-ecology and livestock population in the study area are mid altitude with a mixed farming system as described in Arsi Plan Economic Development Office (APEDO) [8].

Study animals and the considered risk factors

The study constituted 384 randomly sampled calves of age less than or equal to 12 months, and 1-3 calves per owner were sampled. Animal husbandry practices such as management systems including cleanings of cow udder and feeding and watering troughs, colostrum feeding time, house cleaning frequency, housing system and cleaning were collected from owners through interviews. Breed, age, and sex of calves were considered as risk factors.

Samples

Fecal samples were collected directly from the rectum into clean universal bottles preserved with 2.5% potassium dichromate [1]. Each sample was clearly labeled and transported under cold chain to Asella Regional Veterinary Laboratory.

Laboratory procedures and data analysis

Laboratory investigation was performed according to Kaufmann [9] with application of sporulation for 10-14 days at room temperature. Using overtime stand flotation technique with no centrifugation, microscopic examination was carried out and the sporulated oocysts and the oocysts were characterized by using shape and morphological appearances of the respective species [1, 10]. All the data obtained were analyzed using STATA Version 7.0 and SPSS 16.0 to determine the association of risk factors. Chi-square was analyzed for the considered variables of the study. p value (<0.05) was considered as the significance point of Eimeria infection.

RESULTS

Out of the total 384 fecal samples examined, 278 (72.4%) tested positive for Eimeria. The prevalence of Eimeria was 68.4% in male and 75.8% in female calves. As shown in Table 1, the infection rates were significantly different between presence (71.2%) and absence (100%) of colostrum feeding at an early age (p <0.05). However, no statistical significant differences (p >0.05) in occurrence of Eimeria infection were found.

From the 278 positive calves, 10 species of Eimeria were identified: These were E. bovis (44.5%), E. zuernii (26.3%), E. auburnensis (10.9%), E. canadensis (9.4%), E. subspherica (6.5%), E. ellipsoidalis (5.7%), E. cylindrica (3.1%), E. alabamensis (2.6%), E. wyomingensis (2.6%), and E. bukidnonesis (2.1%) in the decreasing order. As shown in Table 2, differences in prevalence of E. bovis, E. auburnensis, E. canadensis, and E. ellipsoidalis were observed to be significantly lower in the colostrum feeding states (p <0.05) but not in the others factors (p >0.05).

The prevalence of Eimeria species by breed, sex, and age is shown in Table 3. The sex did not influence the prevalence of isolated species (p > 0.05) but significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed for E. zuernii, E. auburnensis, E. ellipsoidalis, E. subspherica, and E. cylindrica in relation to breed, and for E. zuernii and E. wyomingensis in relation to age groups.

The prevalence of Eimeria species according to housing system, house cleaning frequency and udder cleaning are described in Table 4. Differences in prevalence were not observed for housing system and house cleaning frequency (p >0.05). However, high prevalence of E. auburnensis, E. subspherica, and E. alabamensis (p <0.05) were observed in calves suckling un-cleaned udder.

Out of 278 positive calves for Eimeria species, 47.8% of them were infected at a rate of 2-4 species. The remaining 52.2% were infected with single species (Fig. 1). Calf infection with two, three, and four Eimeria species were 41.1%, 5.0%, and 1.4%, respectively.

The independent samples test showed no association (p >0.05) of the risk of sex, feeding systems, and cleaning frequency on number of infections, conditional on the calf being infected. However, the association could not be analyzed for other factors due to zero values in the cell for breed, age, housing system, cleaning of udder, and colostrum feeding (Table 5).

DISCUSSION

The epidemiological investigation of Eimeria is found to be important to implement the control and prevention strategies in dairy calves' management. Thus, the fact that overall 72.3% of calves tested positive for Eimeria showed the prevalence and the burden of infection in the study area. Moreover, the insignificant differences in the occurrence of the agent according to breed, sex, age, feeding system, housing systems, house cleaning frequency, and udder cleaning states before suckling also shows a high incidence of Eimeria in the area. Although the sample sizes were not proportional in colostrum feeding states due to random sampling, significant difference in prevalence related to colostrum feeding showed the role of protection by passive immunity in Eimeria infection. On the other hand, only 16 calves in total did not receive colostrum; however, all of them were infected. The overall prevalence of Eimeria infection in the present study was compatible with the 68.1% finding of coccidiosis in dairy calves in central Ethiopia [6], 67.4% in Kenya [11] and 70% in South Africa [12]. These studies show the widespread occurrence of the agent in the calves' environment. The present finding was also higher than reports from Saudi Arabia [13], Japan [14, 15], the Netherlands [16], and Poland [17]. The difference could be due to differences in the calves' management systems, agro-ecology of the areas, and the awareness of breeders on the importance of colostrum feeding in the study areas. This study was performed under traditional calves' management system. Radostits et al. [2], Davis and Drackley [18], and Seifert [19] indicated poor farming system as a risk factor for predisposing to Eimeria infection while the improved dairy calves' management systems reduce the risk and improve control of coccidiosis.

The detection of several Eimeria species in the study area showed the high risk. Eimeria species also maintained and circulated in dairy animals and in the environment under sub-clinical conditions, which became a source of infection for the subsequent new calves, particularly the neonates. Hiko and Wondimu [20] emphasized that sub-clinical parasitic conditions in dairy animals result in reduced animal performance and increased susceptibility to other diseases. The highest prevalence was observed for E. bovis (44.5%) followed by E. zuernii (26.3%) and E. auburnensis (10.9%) which was similar to a report by Speer [21]. These species are usually the most frequently seen coccidia in outbreaks of coccidiosis throughout the world [2]. Despite that, most of the studied calves were found to be infected with Eimeria species, although clinical symptoms were not observed during the study period. This resulted in subclinical infections especially due to the high proportion of the pathogenic species such as E. bovis and E. zuernii observed in the present study. The impacts are underestimated, since infection negatively affects animal productivity, growth and physiological performance; contributing to economic losses in the livestock sector. Moreover, infection continues to promote the shedding of oocysts and environmental contamination. Such environment will act as the potential source of infection for the calves [19]. The multiple infections with 2-4 Eimeria species in this study was smaller than those reported with seven different species in Ethiopia [6], in USA [22]) and in the Netherlands [16], as well as with five Eimeria species in Canada [23]. The status of multiple infections with age, housing system, lower udder cleaning during milking, and absence of colostrum feeding in this report showed the risk for infection. Similar patterns were suggested by Radostits et al. [2] and Seifert [19].

CONCLUSION

Based on the present results, early colostrum feeding showed remarkable reduction of coccidiosis. However, the majority of other factors assessed were found to contribute to the contamination and maintenance of Eimeria on the farm. The occurrence of multiple pathogenic Eimeria spp. in the studied dairy calves indicates that substandard management systems make calves prone to a subclinical form of infection. This disease hampers growth and health of the most susceptible animals especially young calves under six months old. This may lead to considerable economic losses at the dairy farm. Therefore, besides early feeding with enough amount of colostrum, practicing good management in calves and implementation of proper hygienic measures in their environments were recommended to reduce direct and indirect economic losses from the infection.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to acknowledge Asella Regional Laboratory in the Oromia Regional State for their unreserved cooperation and for providing laboratory facilities for this study.

REFERENCES

[1.] Urquhart GM, Armour J, Duncan JL, Dunn AM and FW Jennings Veterinary Parasitology, 2nd Ed. Black Well Science 1996; 223-234.

[2.] Radostits OM, Gay CC, Blood DC, Hinchcliff KW and PD Constable Veterinary Medicine. Text book of the disease of cattle, horses, sheep, pigs, and goats. 10th Ed. Saunders, Elsevier, London 2007; 1498-1506.

[3.] Parker RJ and GW Jones Destruction of bovine coccidial oocysts stimulated by dry tropical weather. Veterinary Parasitology, 1990; 35: 269-272.

[4.] Ernst JU and GW Benz Intestinal coccidiosis in cattle. The veterinary clinics of North America/parasites: Epidemiology and control. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, AP, 1986.

[5.] Svensson C, Uggla A and B Pehrson Eimeria alabamensis infection as a cause of diarrhea and calves as pasture. Veterinary Parasitology, 1994; 53:33-43.

[6.] Rahmeto A and W Abebe Epidemiology of Eimeria infection in dairy calves in central Ethiopia. Ethiopian Veterinary Journal, 2007; 11: 95-105.

[7.] Kassa B, Delgado A and T Asegedech An outbreak of coccidiosis in cattle. Ethiopian Veterinary Bulletin, 1987; 3: 20-27.

[8.] APEDO. Socioeconomic information on Arsi zone, Arsi. Arsi Plan Economic Development Office (APEDO). Oromia, Arsi Asella, 1999.

[9.] Kaufmann J Parasitic Infection of Domestic Animal. A Diagnostic Manual. Berlin: Birkhauser verleg 1990; 1-29.

[10.] Soulsby EJL Helminthes, Arthropods and Protozoa of domesticated animals, 7th Ed.Bailliere Tindall 1982; 594-664.

[11.] Munyua WK and JW Ngotho Prevalence of Eimeria species in cattle in Kenya. Veterinary Parasitology, 1990; 35: 163-168.

[12.] Matjila PT and BL Penzhorn Occurrence and diversity of coccidian at three localities in South Africa. Veterinary Parasitology, 2002; 104: 93-102.

[13.] Kasim AA and YR Al-Shawa Prevalence of Eimeria in feces of cattle in Saudi Arabia. Veterinary Parasitology, 1985; 17: 95-99.

[14.] Hashullah A, Akiba Y, Takano H and K Ogimoto Seasonal distribution of bovine coccidian in beef cattle herd in the University farm. Nippon Juigaku Zasshi 1990; 52: 1175-1179.

[15.] Oda K and Y Nishida Prevalence and distribution of bovine coccidian in Japan. Nippon Juigaku Zasshi 1990; 52: 71-77.

[16.] Cornelissen AW, Vrstegen R, Vanden CW and H Brand An observational study of Eimeria species in housed cattle on Dutch dairy farms. Veterinary Parasitology, 1995; 56: 7-16.

[17.] Pilarczyk B, Balicka-Ramisz A and A Ramisz Studies on coccidiosis in cattle in North-West Poland. Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural University 2000; 3(1)

[18.] Davis CL and JK Drackley The Development, Nutrition, and Management of the young calves 1st edn. Iowa State University Press 1998; 224-229.

[19.] Seifert HSH Tropical Animal Health. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands 1996.

[20.] Hiko A and A Wondimu Occurrence of nematodiasis in Holstein Friesian dairy breed. 2011. Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health, 2011; 3: 6-10.

[21.] Speer CA Coccidiosis. In: Howard, J. L. and Smith, R. A. (Eds.). Current Veterinary Therapy, Food Animal Practice, 4th Ed. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia 1999; 411-420.

[22.] Ernst JV, Stewart TB and DR Witlock Quantitative determination of coccidian oocysts in beef calves from the coastal plain area of Georgia. Veterinary Parasitology, 1987; 23: 1-10.

[23.] Kennedy MJ and RA Kralka A survey of Eimeria species in cattle in central Alberta. Canadian Veterinary Journal, 1987; 28: 124-125.

Hiko A. (1*) and A. Rorisa (1)

(*) Corresponding author's email: adex.2010ph@gmail.com

(1) College of Vet. Medicine, Haramaya University, Po. Box: 138 Dire Dawa, Ethiopia

Rate of Eimeria infection

%, Single species  52.2
%, Two species     41.4
%, Three species    5.0
%, Four species     1.4


Figure 1: Rate of Eimeria infection in studied dairy calves which are
infected

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Table 1: The status of Eimeria infection according to studied factors

Studied Factors                  Number examined  Positive No. (%)

Breed               Local             156           116(74.4)
                    Cross             228           162(71.1)
Sex                 Female            207           157(75.8)
                    Male              177           121(68.4)
Age (months)        Less than 6       213           157(73.7)
                    7-12              171           121(70.8)
Feeding system      Ground            131            96(73.3)
                    Troughs           253           182(71.9)
Housing system      Single             64            44(68.7)
                    Group             320           234(73.1)
Cleaning Frequency  Once              338           245(72.5)
(day)               Twice              46            33(71.7)
Udder Cleaning      Present           210           146(69.5)
                    Absent            174           132(75.9)
Colostrum feeding   Present           368           262(71.2)
                    Absent             16            16(100.0)
Total                                 384           278(72.3)

Studied Factors     [chi square]  P-value

Breed                   0.5        0.4

Sex                     2.6        0.1

Age (months)            0.4        0.5

Feeding system          0. 1       0.7

Housing system          0.5        0.4

Cleaning Frequency      2.2        0.1
(day)
Udder Cleaning          1.9        0.1

Colostrum feeding       6.3        0.0

Total

Table 2: Factors related to feed and feeding system on the prevalence
of Eimeria species

                  Total No. of               Feeding system
Eimeria species   examined          Ground (n=131)    Troughs
                  (n=384)                             (n=253)
                  Positive No. (%)  Positive No. (%)  Positive No. (%)

E. bovis          171 (44.5)        56 (42.7)         115 (45.5)
E. zuernii        101 (26.3)        32 (24.4)          69 (27.3)
E. auburnensis     42 (10.9)        16 (12.2)          26 (10.3)
E. canadensis      36 (9.4)         16 (12.2)          20 (7.9)
E. ellipsoidalis   22 (5.7)          6 (4.6)           16 (6.3)
E. subspherica     25 (6.5)         10 (7.6)           15 (5.9)
E. cylindrica      12 (3.1)          5 (3.8)            7 (2.8)
E. alabamensis     10 (2.6)          4 (3.1)            6 (2.4)
E. wyomingensis    10 (2.6)          3 (2.3)            7 (2.8)
E. bukidnonesis     8 (2.1)          5 (3.8)            3 (1.2)

                           Colostrum feeding
Eimeria species   Present (n=368)    Absent (n= 16)

                  Positive No. (%)   Positive No. (%)

E. bovis          160 (43.5)         11 (68.8) (*)
E. zuernii         98 (26.6)          3 (18.8)
E. auburnensis     37 (10.1)          5 (31.3) (*)
E. canadensis       30 (8.2)          6 (37.5) (*)
E. ellipsoidalis    16 (4.3)          6 (37.5) (*)
E. subspherica      22 (6.0)          3 (18.8)
E. cylindrica       12 (3.3)           0 (0.0)
E. alabamensis      10 (2.7)           0 (0.0)
E. wyomingensis      9 (2.4)           1 (6.3)
E. bukidnonesis      8 (2.2)           0 (0.00)

(*) Statistically significant (p <0.05)

Table 3: Prevalence of Eimeria species according to breed, age, and sex
of animals

                    Breed                     Sex
Eimeria             Local      Cross          Female      Male
Species             (n=156)    (n=228)        (n=207)     (n=177)
                    Positive   Positive       Positive    Positive
                    No. (%)    No. (%)        No. (%)     No. (%)

E. bovis          68 (43.6)   103 (45.2)      92 (44.4)   79 (44.6)
E. zuernii        30 (19.2)    71 (31.1) (*)  57 (27.5)   44 (24.9)
E. auburnensis    23 (14.7)    19 (8.3) (*)   27 (13.0)   15 (8.5)
E. canadensis     17 (10.9)    19 (8.3)       24 (11.6)   12 (6.8)
E. ellipsoidalis    4 (2.6)    18 (0.1) (*)   14 (6.8)     8 (4.5)
E. subspherica    18 (11.5)     7 (3.1) (*)   17 (8.2)     8 (4.5)
E. cylindrica       1 (0.6)    11 (4.8) (*)    4 (1.9)     8 (4.5)
E. alabamensis     10 (6.4)     0 (0.0)        6 (2.9)     4 (2.3)
E. wyomingensis     3 (1.9)     7 (3.1)        4 (1.9)     6 (3.4)
E. bukidnonesis     3 (1.9)     5 (0.1)        4 (1.9)     4 (2.3)

                  Age (months)
Eimeria           <6            7-12
Species           (n=213)       (n=171)
                  Positive      Positive
                  No. (%)       No. (%)

E. bovis           99 (46.5)     72 (42.1)
E. zuernii         65 (30.5)     36 (21.1) (*)
E. auburnensis     21 (9.9)      21 (12.3)
E. canadensis      22 (10.3)     14 (8.2)
E. ellipsoidalis   10 (4.7)      12 (7.0)
E. subspherica     11 (5.2)      14 (8.2)
E. cylindrica       9 (4.2)       3 (1.6)
E. alabamensis      3 (1.4)       7 (4.1)
E. wyomingensis     2 (0.9)       8 (4.7) (*)
E. bukidnonesis     3 (1.4)       5 (2.9)

(*) Statistically significant (p <0.05)

Table 4: Factors related to housing and cleaning methods on the
prevalence of Eimeria species

                                             House cleaning
                     Housing system           frequency/day
                   Single      Group        Once         Twice
Eimeria species    (n=64)      (n=320)      (n=338)      (n=46)
                   Positive    Positive     Positive      Positive
                   No. (%)     No. (%)      No. (%)       No. (%)

E. bovis            35 (54.7)   136          153          18 (39.1)
                                   (42.5)       (45.3)
E. zuernii          17 (26.6)    84 (26.3)    89 (26.3)   12 (26.1)
E. auburnensis       3 (4.7)     39 (12.2)    39 (11.5)    3 (6.5)
E. canadensis        7 (10.9)    29 (9.1)     33 (9.8)     3 (6.5)
E. ellipsoidalis     3 (4.7)     19 (5.9)     17 (5.0)     5 (10.7)
E. subspherica       1 (1.6)     24 (7.5)     22 (6.5)     3 (6.5)
E. cylindrica        3 (4.7)      9 (2.8)     11 (3.3)     1 (2.2)
E. alabamensis       0 (0.0)     10 (3.1)     10 (2.9)     0 (0.0)
E. wyomingensis      1 (1.6)      9 (2.8)      8 (2.4)     2 (4.4)
E. bukidnonesis      1 (1.6)      7 (2.2)      7 (2.1)     1 (2.2)


                     Udder cleaning
                    Present     Absent
Eimeria species     (n=210)     (n=174)
                    Positive    Positive
                    No. (%)     No. (%)

E. bovis            93 (44.3)   78 (44.8)

E. zuernii          61 (29.0)   40 (22.9)
E. auburnensis      13 (6.2)    29 (19.7) (*)
E. canadensis       15 (7.1)    21 (12.1)
E. ellipsoidalis    12 (5.7)    10 (5.7)
E. subspherica       2 (0.9)    23 (13.2) (*)
E. cylindrica        9 (4.3)     3 (1.7)
E. alabamensis       2 (0.9)     8 (4.6) (*)
E. wyomingensis      7 (3.3)     3 (1.7)
E. bukidnonesis      4 (1.9)     4 (2.3)

(*) Statistically significant (P < 0.05)

Table 5: Frequency of Eimeria positive calves as infection with one or
more species

                       Number    Rate of Eimeria observation No. (%)
Risk Factors           examired  One         Two         Three

Breed         Local    156       62 (39.7)   50 (32.1)   4 (2.5)
              Cross    228       53 (36.4)   65 (28.5)  10 (4.4)
Sex           Female   207       84 (40.6)   59 (40.6)  11 (5.3)
              Male     177       61 (34.4)    56(31.6)    3(1.7)
Age (months)  <6       213       86 (40.3)   56 (26.2)  14 (6.5)
              7-12     171       59 (34.5)   59 (34.5)   0 (0.0)
Feeding       Ground   131       48 (36.6)   43 (32.8)   3 (2.3)
system        Troughs  253       97 (38.3)   72 (28.5)  11 (4.4)
Housing       Single    64       24 (37.5)   13 (20.3)   7(10.9)
system (pen)  Group    320      121 (37.0)  102 (31.0)   7 (2.2)
Udder         Present  220       84 (40.0)   53 (25.2)   9 (4.3)
Cleaning      Absent   174       61 (35.0)   62 (35.6)   5 (2.9)
Cleaning      Once     338      132 (39.0)  101 (29.0)  13 (3.9)
frequency     Twice    46        13 (28.3)   14 (30.4)   1 (2.2)
(day)
Colostrum     Present  368      141 (38.0)  106 (28.8)  14 (3.8)
feeding       Absent   16         4 (26.6)    9 (56.3)   0 (0.0)
Total                  384      145 (37.8)  115 (29.9)  14 (3.6)

               Rate of Eimeria
               observation No. (%)      P-
Risk Factors   Four       [chi square]  value

Breed          0 (0.0)    -              -
               4 (1.8)
Sex            3 (1.5)    7.33           0.1
               1 (0.6)
Age (months)   1 (0.4)    -              -
               3 (1.8)
Feeding        2 (1.5)    2.13           0.7
system         2 (0.7)
Housing        0 (0.0)    -              -
system (pen)   4 (1.2)
Udder          0 (0.0)    -              -
Cleaning       4 (2.3)
Cleaning       3 (0.8)    3.83           0.4
frequency      1 (2.1)
(day)
Colostrum      1 (0.2)    -              -
feeding        3 (18.8)
Total          4 (1.0)
COPYRIGHT 2016 Rural Outreach Program
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:A., Hiko; Rorisa, A.
Publication:African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:6ETHI
Date:Nov 1, 2016
Words:4025
Previous Article:Minerals and trace elements in the soil-plant-animal continuum in Ethiopia: A review.
Next Article:Leafy Amaranthus consumption patterns in Ouagadougou, Burkina FASO.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters