Site Loader
Get a Quote

APROVAL SHEETUMUTARA POLYTECHNIC FACULTY OF VETERINARY MEDICINE AND
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
As members of the examining board of the final Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine open defense, we certify that we have read and evaluated the dissertation presented by Joshua KATUSIME entitled “A SURVEY ON PREVALENCE OF LUMPY SKIN DISEASE OF CATTLE IN KARANGAZI SECTOR” and we here by recommend that it will be considered as meeting the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of degree of bachelor’s in Veterinary Medicine.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Name of chairman of examinersSignature Date
I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my supervision and has been submitted for the award of degree in Veterinary Medicine with my approval.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Name of SupervisorSignature Date
Final approval and acceptance of the dissertation is contingent upon submission of one printed copy of the corrected dissertation and an exact electronic copy of the document on a CD to the faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Biological Sciences.
DECLARATION.I, KATUSIME Joshua, declare that the dissertation entitled
A SURVEY ON PREVALENCE OF LUMPY SKIN DISEASE OF CATTLE IN KARANGAZI SECTOR is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any university.

I also declare that this dissertation is my individual work and that all sources of materials used for this dissertation have been duly acknowledged.

This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Award of a Bachelor’s degree in Veterinary Medicine of Umutara Polytechnic (UP).

Signature…………………………………………………………Date………………
Joshua KATUSIME VSUP/0032/MS/09
This dissertation is submitted with the supervision and approval of:
Dr. ASHABA Alson RWAKANUUMA. Dip (ANIMAL HUSBUNDRY), BVM, MSc.

Signature ……………………………………………………… Date…………………
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Biological Sciences.

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated
With love and respect
to
my parents, brothers and sisters and my classmates
for their support during my long absences from home
whilst working on the BVM.

Through your support, I found the courage that enabled me to finish this work.

BIBIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHOR.The author was born on 29/01/1987, in Toro-Uganda. He studied his primary at Karangazi Primary School where he got his primary leaving certificate in 2001. His secondary studies have been done at Kagitumba High school during academic year 2001-2004 where he got his ordinary level certificate in 2004; from there he went to Rukomo secondary school during academic year 2005-2007 where he got the advanced level certificate.He pursued his higher studies at the Umutara Polytechnic (UP) for a bachelor’s degree in Veterinary Medicine.Joshua KATUSIME.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTAbove all, I would like to render my utmost praise to almighty God, for giving me the opportunity for this under-graduate study and for giving me health, energy, and favourable situations to carry out the research work.

I would like to extend due regards to REB for sponsoring me for this under-graduate study. I would also very much like to extend thanks to my parents who helped me
a lot during my research work.

I have special honors and am very grateful to my supervisor Dr.Alson RWAKANUUMA ASHABA for his unreserved support and guidance throughout the research work. His encouragement and all-rounded support to do this work in the four months research period are highly appreciated.

Special thanks go to Mr. NIYONSHUTI James for providing me a computer which helped me in project writing and data analysis.

I would also like to acknowledge the cooperation of Mr. Kamugisha Samuel for his contribution.

May GOD pour His blessings to you all in everything that you do.

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC o “1-3” h z u APROVAL SHEET PAGEREF _Toc361894165 h iDECLARATION. PAGEREF _Toc361894166 h iiDEDICATION PAGEREF _Toc361894167 h iiiBIBIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHOR. PAGEREF _Toc361894168 h ivACKNOWLEDGEMENT PAGEREF _Toc361894169 h vTABLE OF CONTENTS PAGEREF _Toc361894170 h viLIST OF ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS PAGEREF _Toc361894171 h xABSTRACT PAGEREF _Toc361894172 h xiCHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION PAGEREF _Toc361894173 h 11.0. BACK GROUND. PAGEREF _Toc361894174 h 11.2. JUSTICATION OF THE STUDY PAGEREF _Toc361894175 h 21.3. OBJECTIVES PAGEREF _Toc361894176 h 21.4. Specific objectives. PAGEREF _Toc361894177 h 21.5. REASERCH QUESTIONS PAGEREF _Toc361894178 h 2CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW. PAGEREF _Toc361894179 h 32.0. GENERAL INFORMATION ON LSD PAGEREF _Toc361894180 h 32.1. Definition: PAGEREF _Toc361894181 h 32.2. Geographical Distribution of LSD worldwide. PAGEREF _Toc361894182 h 32.3 History of lumpy skin disease in Africa. PAGEREF _Toc361894183 h 42.4 Geographical Distribution of LSD in Africa. PAGEREF _Toc361894184 h 52.5 Lumpy skin disease in Rwanda. PAGEREF _Toc361894185 h 62.6 Economic losses caused by lumpy skin disease. PAGEREF _Toc361894186 h 7CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS PAGEREF _Toc361894187 h 83.1 Materials PAGEREF _Toc361894188 h 83.3. Study Area PAGEREF _Toc361894189 h 83.3.1. Study location PAGEREF _Toc361894190 h 83.3.2. Human population surveyed. PAGEREF _Toc361894191 h 113.3.3. Personal interviewing using a questionnaire PAGEREF _Toc361894192 h 113.4. Study Design. PAGEREF _Toc361894193 h 123.4.1 Target population PAGEREF _Toc361894194 h 123.4.2 Selection of the sector. PAGEREF _Toc361894195 h 123.4.3. Sampling technique. PAGEREF _Toc361894196 h 123.4.4. Calculation of the Sample size PAGEREF _Toc361894197 h 123.4.5. Field Data collection PAGEREF _Toc361894198 h 133.4.6. Data management and analysis. PAGEREF _Toc361894199 h 13CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION. PAGEREF _Toc361894200 h 144.1. General information on respondents. PAGEREF _Toc361894201 h 144.2 Morbidity and mortality rates of lumpy skin disease. PAGEREF _Toc361894202 h 154.3 Socio-economic losses due to lumpy skin disease. PAGEREF _Toc361894203 h 164.4 Sources of lumpy skin disease. PAGEREF _Toc361894204 h 174.5 Occurrence of lumpy skin disease according to season. PAGEREF _Toc361894205 h 18CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. PAGEREF _Toc361894206 h 19CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS. PAGEREF _Toc361894207 h 226.1. Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc361894208 h 226.2. RECOMMENDATIONS. PAGEREF _Toc361894209 h 237. REFERENCES PAGEREF _Toc361894210 h 248. APPENDICES PAGEREF _Toc361894211 h 27
LIST OF FIGURES
TOC h z c “Figure” Figure 1: Map of Nyagatare district PAGEREF _Toc361891494 h 10Figure 2: Respondents according to sex in three cells. PAGEREF _Toc361891495 h 14Figure 3: Distribution of mortality according to the cells PAGEREF _Toc361891496 h 15Figure 4: Distribution of morbidity according to the cells. PAGEREF _Toc361891497 h 15Figure 5: Distribution of socio-economic losses. PAGEREF _Toc361891498 h 16Figure 6: Distribution of socio-economic losses according to the cells. PAGEREF _Toc361891499 h 16Figure 7: Distribution of sources of lumpy skin disease. PAGEREF _Toc361891500 h 17Figure 8: Distribution of sources of lumpy skin disease according to the cells. PAGEREF _Toc361891501 h 17Figure 9: Occurrence of lumpy skin disease according to the season. PAGEREF _Toc361891502 h 18Figure 10: Occurrence of lumpy skin disease according to season and year. PAGEREF _Toc361891503 h 18
LIST OF APPENDICES
TOC h z c “APPENDIX” APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE FORM PAGEREF _Toc361891874 h 27APPENDIX 2: ANIMALS WITH LUMPY SKIN LESIONS. PAGEREF _Toc361891875 h 34
LIST OF ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMSBVM: Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine.

LSD: Lumpy skin disease.

LSDV: Lumpy Skin Disease Virus.

MINAGRI: Ministry of Agriculture.OIE: Office International des Epizooties.

RAB: Rwanda Agriculture Board.

REB: Rwanda Education Board.

SGPV: sheep and goat pox virus.

SPSS: Statistical package for the social sciences.

UP: Umutara polytechnic.

WAHID: World Animal Health Information database.

ABSTRACT
This study was conducted in Karangazi sector in three cells of Rwisirabo, Mbare and Ndama from January 2013 to may 2013. The main focus was to determine the prevalence of lumpy skin disease, to find out the morbidity and mortality rates of lumpy skin disease, determine socio-economic losses of lumpy skin disease and also to document the main sources of lumpy skin diseases in the sector. The cross-sectional study employed both open and closed questionnaires supplemented by interviews on one hundred farmers who were keeping cattle in the sector. All the farmers that were interviewed had a total number of 311 cows.
Data were collected using questionnaires and interviews and were analyzed using SPSS and Microsoft office Excel 2007. Analytical tools used included descriptive statistics. The study found that mortality rate was 15.75% and morbidity rate was 84.24%. The study revealed that 65% of the farmers had loss of milk production, 22% of farmers had damage of skins and hides and 8% of farmers had cases of abortion while 5% was other losses like costs of treatment and reduced income to households. The results also indicated that the sources of lumpy skin disease within the herds were by direct contact of infected cows with healthy cows with 79% and by introduction of new animals in the farms with 20%. It is therefore concluded that farmers do not respond to vaccination program and therefore the animals do not have endemic stability. Also the fly population is not properly controlled since the strategies for controlling flies is not proper.

Therefore if farmers can rectify the above problems the mortality rate and morbidity rate would be reduced.

Key words: mortality, morbidity, socio-economic losses and sources of lumpy skin disease.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION1.0. BACK GROUND.The clinical syndrome of lumpy skin disease (LSD) was first described in Zambia (formerly Northern Rhodesia) in 1929. Initially, it was considered to be the result either of poisoning or a hypersensitivity to insect bites. Between 1943 and 1945, cases occurred in Botswana (Bechuanaland), Zimbabwe (Southern Rhodesia) and the Republic of South Africa. The infectious nature of the disease was recognized at this time. (Thomas et, al, 1945; Backstrom, 1945; Diesel, 1949).

LSD was first identified in East Africa in Kenya in 1957 and the Sudan in 1972 and in West Africa in 1974, spreading into Somalia in 1983. From 1929 to 1986 the disease was restricted to countries in sub-Saharan Africa, although its potential to extend beyond this range had been suggested by Davies, (1981).

LSD has become a problem in Rwanda due to frequent outbreaks that occur almost every year and these outbreaks cause economic losses to the dairy industry in Rwanda. According RAB Nyagatare (2012) LSD outbreaks occurred in Nyagatare district one of seven districts of eastern province of Rwanda. In Nyagatare district outbreak of LSD was observed in Musheri sector and Karangazi sector.

1.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
In Rwanda, little or insignificant systematic attempts have been made to find out and document why the occurrence of lumpy skin disease is common in cattle more particularly in Karangazi sector, Nyagatare district. It is against this background that it becomes very important to undertake the survey to document.

This study provided data on the LSD mortality rate in cattle and also the source of disease in the area was traced and documented for future use.

Also data on the causes of the spread of lumpy skin, socio-economic losses of lumpy skin disease, and probable ways of controlling the further occurrence and rapid spread of the lumpy skin in Karangazi was obtained.

1.2. JUSTICATION OF THE STUDYThere is no a single formal research that can be used as a basic source of information on the prevalence of lumpy skin disease in Karangazi. Due to such and other similar reasons, I believe that this dissertation will help research scientist, policy makers, planners as well as progressive farmers to understand the prevalence of Lumpy skin disease.
1.3. OBJECTIVESMain objective
To determine the prevalence of lumpy skin disease in Karangazi sector, Nyagatare district in Rwanda.

1.4. Specific objectives.To find out the morbidity and mortality rates of lumpy skin disease in Cattle in Karangazi sector;
To determine socio-economic losses of lumpy skin disease in Karangazi sector;
To find out the sources of lumpy skin diseases in Karangazi sector.
1.5. REASERCH QUESTIONSWhat is the morbidity and mortality rate of lumpy skin disease?
What are the economic losses caused by lumpy skin disease?
What are sources of lumpy skin disease?
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW. 2.0. GENERAL INFORMATION ON LSD 2.1. Definition:Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) is an acute infectious disease of cattle which is characterized by high fever, lymphadenopathy, sudden eruption of multiple circumscribed skin nodules, necrotic plaques in mucosa and subsequent sit fasts of the nodules (Woods, 1988).

2.2. Geographical Distribution of LSD worldwide.LSD outbreaks have been reported in the Middle Eastern region since 1990. According to the OIE, LSD has been reported in Kuwait in 1991, Lebanon in 1993, Yemen in 1995, United Arab Emirates in 2000, Bahrain in 2003, Israel in 2006–2007 and Oman in 2010. The presence of LSDV in Saudi Arabia (reported in 1992) was never confirmed with certainty. To feed a rapidly growing population, the Middle East has become a substantial importer of live cattle, frozen meat and animal feed from Europe, Asia and Africa (Shimshony and Economides, 2006). Without strict testing regimes of imported live animals and sufficient control during the quarantine period, the large-scale importation of live animals and animal products allows for an easy entry of infectious diseases.

LSD is a constraint on livestock trade as it causes major production losses notably in high-producing exotic breeds (Davies, 1991). This is an OIE (Office International des Epizooties) listed and a notifiable cattle disease. LSD is signified with the potential for rapid spread and is known to cause severe economic losses by loss of milk production, abortions and infertility in males and females (Irons et al., 2005; OIE Animal Diseases Data, 2011). High temperatures and heavy seasonal rains, and the presence of water courses, lead to an increase in populations of blood-feeding arthropods, which enhance the likelihood of the transmission of vector-borne diseases, such as LSD. The spread of infectious animal diseases within the region is compounded by uncontrolled animal movements, communal grazing and nomadism. The poor animal health situation in the politically unstable Middle East region, the lack of early laboratory detection, inefficient control and eradication measures in combination with inadequate communication between countries and under-reporting to international organizations, such as OIE, increase the hazard of the disease spreading to neighboring countries (Shimshony and Economides, 2006), especially if the outbreaks cannot be effectively controlled by vaccination.

2.3 History of lumpy skin disease in Africa.The clinical syndrome of lumpy skin disease (LSD) was first described in Zambia (formerly Northern Rhodesia) in 1929. Initially, it was considered to be the result either of poisoning or a hypersensitivity to insect bites. Between 1943 and 1945, cases occurred in Botswana (Bechuanaland), Zimbabwe (Southern Rhodesia) and the Republic of South Africa. The infectious nature of the disease was recognized at this time. A panzootic in South Africa, which lasted until 1949, affected some eight million cattle and consequently incurred enormous economic losses (Thomas and Mare, 1945; von Backstrom, 1945; Diesel, 1949).

Milk production dropped by 40% and extended up to 65% until end of the episode caused a huge production loss. LSD causes considerable economic losses due to emaciation, damage to hides, infertility in males and females, mastitis, loss of milk production (Irons et al., 2005)
LSD was first identified in East Africa in Kenya in 1957 and the Sudan in 1972 and in West Africa in 1974, spreading into Somalia in 1983. From 1929 to 1986 the disease was restricted to countries in sub-Saharan Africa, although its potential to extend beyond this range had been suggested (Davies, 1981).
In May 1988, LSD was recognized clinically in the Suez Governorate of Egypt, where it was thought to have arrived at the local quarantine station with cattle imported from south-Africa. The disease spread locally in the summer of 1988 and apparently overwintered with little or no manifestation of clinical disease. It reappeared in the summer of 1989 and, in a period of five to six months, spread to 22 of the 26 governorates of Egypt. A rapid reaction to the problem led to the vaccination of nearly two million cattle with a sheep pox vaccine.

Morbidity in this epizootic was low, being 2 percent of the whole cattle population. Approximately 1449 animals died.
In sub-Saharan Africa, LSD is now enzootic in all the countries in which it has occurred and has proved impossible to eradicate. Restrictions on cattle movements have not prevented its spread within countries and today LSD is liable to extend its range eastward from northeastern Africa and Egypt into the highly receptive.

2.4 Geographical Distribution of LSD in Africa.A new skin disease, referred as ‘pseudo urticaria’, of cattle was first reported in 1929 in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) (MacDonald, 1931) from where the disease spreads to other southern African countries by the 1940s. During the following decades, LSD spreads slowly northwards and is currently present virtually throughout the entire continent of Africa, including Madagascar (World Animal Health Information database, OIE WAHID Interface). The only African countries still considered free of the disease are Libya, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. It has been suggested that, while extending its geographical distribution, the virus has increased in pathogenicity causing extensive epidemics and pandemics on the African continent with sporadic cases occurring during inter-epidemic years (Rweyemamu et al., 2000).

The first LSD outbreak to occur in Egypt was reported in May 1988 (Ali et al., 1990). The Egyptian veterinary authorities were not able to trace the origin of the outbreak with certainty. A higher rate of disease incidence in some parts of the country was associated with greater insect population densities (Ali et al., 1990). In August 1989, the disease spreads for the first time out of Africa into Israel (Yeruham et al., 1994).
Mortality rates of 10 to 40 percent and even higher have been reported on occasion but the much lower range of 1 to 5 percent is more usual. In any epizootic, economic losses clearly depend on the morbidity rates and are brought about by mortality, the loss of production, the depression of growth rates and hide damage. The full skin thickness lesions of LSD punch holes right through the hide, thereby causing permanent damage (Green, 1959). The mortality rate is generally low (1–3%) but may sometimes reach 40% (Coetzer, 2004).
A wind-borne mode of transmission via the stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans) from disease foci in Egypt was suspected. This assumption was based on the fact that no new animals were introduced into the infected herds, LSDV had previously been isolated from stable flies caught after feeding on infected animals (Weiss, 1968), stable flies had been shown to be able to transmit Capri poxvirus between infected and susceptible animals (Mellor et al., 1986, 1987) and Stomoxys spp. predominated over other blood-feeding insects in Israel (Yeruham et al., 1994).

After an apparent absence of 17 years, LSD reoccurred in Egypt in 2006, being introduced into the country by infected cattle imported from the African Horn countries (El-Kholy et al., 2008). The disease spreads surprisingly swiftly throughout the country in spite of an extensive vaccination campaign. In June 2006, cases of LSD were again reported in Israel, and the Israeli authorities speculated that LSDV may have already been circulating in other Middle Eastern countries (Brenner et al., 2009).

2.5 Lumpy skin disease in Rwanda.Lumpy skin disease outbreak occurred in Gakenke district in Northern Province of Rwanda in last year of 2012 where six sectors were in quarantine.

Sectors affected include Busengo, Cyabingo, Kivuruga, Muzo, Rusasa and Janja which led them to be in quarantine. It was common in Busengo sector where nine cows got sick. To prevent the disease spread, 80 percent of the cows in the affected areas and neighboring sectors were vaccinated as according, Ferdinand Mwumvaneza Gakenke district veterinarian. (Newspaper, the new times accessed on 11 April 2013)
2.6 Economic losses caused by lumpy skin disease.Loss of milk production up 70%
Damage of skins and hides
Abortions in some cases due to high fever
Loss of body condition during long course of the disease
CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS3.1 Materials-Questionnaires.

-Computer, pencils and files were used during data collection, storage and analysis.

3.2. Methodology
Questionnaires were distributed to 97 farmers, 1 livestock officer in charge of quarantine and animal diseases in Nyagatare (RAB station), 1 livestock officer at sector level and district veterinary officer under study which voluntarily participated in questionnaires filling and interviews. All the farmers that were interviewed had a total number of 311 cows.

3.3. Study AreaFarmer’s interviews were conducted in Karangazi sector of Nyagatare district in the following cells: Ndama, Rwisirabo and Mbale cells.3.3.1. Study locationThis study was conducted in Karangazi sector of Nyagatare district in Eastern province of Rwanda located at 1° 18′ 0.00″S, 30° 19′ 30.00″E (Latitude:-1.3000; Longitude:30.3250). Karangazi sector is one of 14 sectors of Nyagatare district. It is divided into 11 cells and 54 villages. Karangazi sector is located at 554,872.289 meters Eastings and 4,842,940.949 meters Northings. (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Nyagatare District accessed on 5th march 2013)
Karangazi sector borders with Rwimiyaga sector in the north, Tanzania in the East, Nyagatare and katabagemu sectors in the west, it also borders with Gatsibo district in the south. (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Nyagatare District).
The part of Karangazi sector is covered by Akagera national park. Karangazi sector is one of the sectors which have a big number of cattle populations in Rwanda. The cattle population of Karangazi sector is 19,662 and the number of farmers was 2,507(Nyagatare livestock census, 2012)
It is the largest sector in Nyagatare district and even in the whole country.
The District of Nyagatare where Karangazi sector is located is characterized, in general, by lowly inclined hills separated by dry allies for a long period of the year (June-October). The District is located in the granite low valley whose altitude is 1513, 5m. This kind of topographical layout constitutes an important potentiality for modern livestock and mechanized agriculture. (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Nyagatare District)
Karangazi sector has the same climate as that of Nyagatare district below. The District of Nyagatare experiences small quantity of rains and hot temperatures. It is characterized by two main seasons: one long dry season that varies between 3 and 5 months with an annual average temperature varying between 25,3 °C et 27,7 °C.
The monthly distribution of the rains varies from one year to another. Annual rain falls are both very weak (827 mm/an) and very unpredictable to satisfy the needs in agriculture and livestock (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Nyagatare District)
The hydrographic network is very limited in Karangazi sector as it is in the whole of Nyagatare district in general. The Akagera river flows East on the border with Tanzania and it cuts across Akagera national park. The weak river network constitutes a serious handicap to responding to the needs of water for people and animals. (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Nyagatare District)
Karangazi sector contains half of Akagera National Park where is found a vast number of wildlife including African buffalo, antelopes and more other ruminants. Because the park is not completely fenced, animals can come out to cause some damages in the neighboring human inhabited areas. The River Akagera contains hippopotamuses, and Nile crocodiles. During flooding, these animals can get close to populated areas with dangerous consequences. The sector also accommodates a huge variety of birds such as birds of prey, guineafowl, partridges, herons etc. Hares, wild boar, monkeys and other rodents are occasionally found in the wooded savanna.

The flora in Nyagatare is made in general by afforested savanna vegetation and gallery forests along the rivers. The latter constitutes a very precious reserve which should be rationally exploited. (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Nyagatare District)
The soil of this area is characterized by the tightness of the humifere layer of the soil brought about by the grassy savanna and by the Vertis oils that are rich in nutrients mineral elements but lacking organic substances. These types of soils may be exploited with the help of modern agricultural techniques and form sorts of artificial pastures camps for livestock. Livestock and crop production are the main source of income to population. Livestock is widely dominated by cattle keeping of both local breeds, cross breeds and exotic breeds as some farmers has adopted artificial insemination technology of breeding.

Farmers of Karangazi sector practice different systems of farming which includes intensive, semi extensive, extensive and zero grazing systems of farming.
Figure SEQ Figure * ARABIC 1: Map of Nyagatare districtSTUDY AREA

Source: Nyagatare District, 2006)
3.3.2. Human population surveyed.The target population for this study included the livestock officers of Nyagatare district, livestock officer at Sector level, farm managers and farmers who have experienced the disease and those who have not experienced the disease.  
3.3.3. tc “MATERIALS AND METHODS” f C l 00000001Personal interviewing using a questionnaireThe questionnaires were distributed to the people in different categories in order to get the intended information regarding the objectives of the study. The sampling frame was focused on households and key informants whose main occupations are as follows:
So this was purposive sampling.

a) Questionnaire for farmers who have experienced the disease
The questionnaire inquired about the basic knowledge on LSD, the progression of the disease within the herd, the preventive and control measures used by the veterinary services and their effectiveness, outbreaks occurred, spread of disease among the herd and economic losses it causes.
b) Questionnaire for farmers who have not experienced the disease
The questionnaire included preventive methods put in place to avoid the spread of disease, the risk of disease introduction into their community still healthy and advice to other farmers.

c) Questionnaire for the District veterinary officer and sector veterinary technicians.

The questionnaire covers the years of onset, morbidity and mortality, the progression of the disease, sources of the virus, spread, persistent factors, and the national policy to combat the disease.
d) Questionnaire for personal in charge of quarantine (Nyagatare RAB)
The questionnaire for this category includes questions posed to farmers, which we added a question on the design and the national policy for eradication of the disease. 3.4. Study Design.A cross sectional survey was carried out within four months period from January to May in three cells of Karangazi sector.

This study was carried out through personal communication, interviews and questionnaires that were administered to cattle farmers and veterinary technicians.

3.4.1 Target populationThis study targeted cattle keepers of Karangazi sector in the three cells Rwisirabo, Mbare and Ndama.
3.4.2 Selection of the sector.This was purposive sampling because Karangazi sector has the biggest cattle population compared to other sectors of Nyagatare district.

The cattle population of Karangazi sector is 19,662(Nyagatare livestock census, 2012) and the number of farmers is 2,507(Nyagatare livestock census, 2012).

The aim of our study was to investigate the various outbreaks of LSD which
occurred between 2009 and 2012, which explains the investigations in three cells where the disease was suspected.

Basing on the information received from the veterinary technician at the sector level and district level we chose to carry out our survey in the three cells where the disease has occurred.
3.4.3. Sampling technique.Farmers in the all three cells under study were selected at random.

3.4.4. Calculation of the Sample sizeThe sample size was calculated using technique advocated by Yamane (1967) which is simplified formula to calculate sample size.

n = N
1+N (e) 2
Where
n is the sample size,
N is the population size and
e is the level of precision 10%.

According to the information got from District veterinary officer (DVO), livestock census report indicated that Karangazi sector had 2,507 farmers. (Livestock census, 2012 Nyagatare district)
According to the formula advocated by Yamane (1967), with N =2,507 farmers,
e = 10%.
Sample size is n = 2,507 = 99.96 farmers.

1+2,507 (0.1)2
This gives approximately 100 farmers.
This means that Karangazi sector has 2507 farmers in which 100 farmers were sampled in three cells of Rwisirabo, Mbare and Ndama.

3.4.5. Field Data collectionData were collected through a combination of various methods of data collection, like Personal interview, use of questionnaires that were given to the farmers, farm managers and veterinary technician at sector level and records of livestock officer in charge of quarantine and animal diseases in Nyagatare (RAB station).

Focus group discussions were held with farmers at milk collection centres in the morning hours and at watering points (valley dams).

3.4.6. Data management and analysis.Collected data were edited, coded entered in computer and analyzed using computer packages of Statistical package for social sciences (SPSS 16.0 version). Data were well screened and presented by using figures according to the findings.

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION.4.1. General information on respondents.There were 100 farmers under study which voluntarily participated in questionnaire filling and interviews. All the farmers that were interviewed had a total number of 311 cows.

Results indicated that males were the most respondents contributing 86% while females were 14%.

The figure 1 below indicates the respondents according to the sex.

Figure SEQ Figure * ARABIC 2: Respondents according to sex in three cells.

The results also indicated that 27% of farmers were in age bracket of 45-54 years, followed by age group of 35-44 years with 23%, results indicated that farmers in age bracket of 25-34 and 55-above years were 22% and farmers in age group of 15-24 years were 6%.

4.2 Morbidity and mortality rates of lumpy skin disease.Farmers indicated that out of 311 animals only 49 cows died (15.75%) in all the three cells under study as indicated in the figure 2 below.

Figure SEQ Figure * ARABIC 3: Distribution of mortality according to the cells
Farmers indicated that out of 311 animals only 262 cows got diseased (84.24%) in the three cells under study as indicated in the figure 3 below.

Figure SEQ Figure * ARABIC 4: Distribution of morbidity according to the cells.

4.3 Socio-economic losses due to lumpy skin disease.The information on socio-economic losses from respondents was obtained mainly from the interviews supplemented by the questionnaires. The losses indicated in the figure below were revealed by the farmers where loss of milk production was leading followed by damage of skins and hides, abortion and other losses was last.

Figure SEQ Figure * ARABIC 5: Distribution of socio-economic losses.

The losses indicated in the figure below were revealed by the farmers where loss of milk production was leading followed by damage of skins and hides, abortion and other losses was last.

Figure SEQ Figure * ARABIC 6: Distribution of socio-economic losses according to the cells.

4.4 Sources of lumpy skin disease.Farmers said during the study that direct contact of infected cows with health cows was the common source of lumpy skin disease to their farms followed by introduction of new animals and unknown cause was the last as indicated in the figure 6 below.

Figure SEQ Figure * ARABIC 7: Distribution of sources of lumpy skin disease.

Figure SEQ Figure * ARABIC 8: Distribution of sources of lumpy skin disease according to the cells.

4.5 Occurrence of lumpy skin disease according to season.The results indicated that lumpy skin disease occurrence was high during wet season compared to dry season as indicated in figure 8 below.

Figure SEQ Figure * ARABIC 9: Occurrence of lumpy skin disease according to the season.

From the findings, the results indicated that occurrence of lumpy skin disease was high during wet compared to dry season. Lumpy skin disease was registered more in year 2009 compared to other years as indicated in figure 9 below.

Figure SEQ Figure * ARABIC 10: Occurrence of lumpy skin disease according to season and year.

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS.

According to results obtained during the study in which 100 farmers were under study, 86% farmers were males and 14% farmers were females. Results indicated that men contribute more in livestock farming than women. This is in line with (Waters-Bayer 1988) who said that men are generally associated with animals as herd managers and are generally considered owners of cattle, with women and children having usufruct privileges. Women, however, do own livestock. Small ruminants kept by nomadic households are more the property of women than men. Based on gender division of responsibilities, women keep small stock as a source of cash for general family expenses such as buying food, for paying of school fees, for health care and for investment (Martin 1990). Since the respondents were in charge of animals, farmers with age bracket of 45-54 years of age had the highest percentage of 27% may be because their the one who have land and money to own the animals. The results indicated that respondents with age bracket 15-24 years of age had lowest percentage of 6% may be because most the people of this age group were school fore gore and do not have enough money to invest in livestock.

From the results showed that morbidity was 84.24% and mortality of 15.75%. This is in agreement with the report of (Woods, 1988; Barnard et al., 1994) where morbidity of LSD varied from 3 to 85% and mortality never exceeded 3%. During the outbreak which occurred in Israel in 2006, up to 41.3% morbidity rates were reported (Brenner et al., 2009).The results indicated that mortality was 15.75%. This is in agreement with (Coetzer, 2004) report where mortality rate was generally low (1–3%) but may sometimes reach 40%. According to results obtained during the study, social economic losses caused by lumpy skin disease, loss of milk production was first with highest peak of 65% followed by damage of skins and hides with 22%, abortion with 8% and other losses like cost of treatment for secondary bacterial infections and reduced income to the house hold with 5% .This is in line with results of study carried out by (Irons et al., 2005) where Milk production dropped by 40% and extended up to 65% until end of the episode caused a huge production loss. The mouth lesions interfere with feeding; milk production ceases, udder and teat lesions may result in serious infections with the sloughing of necrotic tissue. LSD causes considerable economic losses due to emaciation, damage to hides and skins. Results indicated of 8% of farmers had cases of abortion. This is agreement with results obtained by (CVI, 2011) where a low percentage of abortions and infertility were possible in cattle.
79% of farmers indicated that the source of lumpy skin disease was by direct contact of infected cows with heath cows. This was due to the fact that animals shared the same source of water especially at valley dams. This is in agreement with kaurivi, 2011 who found out that lumpy skin disease is transmitted by direct contact with infected animals more especially when fly activities are high in the wet season or around watering points. This is also in agreement with (Barnard et al., 1994; Lefèvre and Gourreau, 2010) that direct transmission can occur when the animals share the same drinking trough due to Contamination by nasal and salivary discharges from infected animals. This is in disagreement with (Weiss, 1968; Carn and Kitching, 1995) report that direct or indirect contact between infected and susceptible animals is an inefficient method of transmission. However, successful transmission was achieved when naïve animals were allowed to share a drinking trough with severely infected animals (Haig, 1957).

The results indicated that introduction of new animals in the farms was 20%.This is in agreement with similar results of (Gari et al., 2010) they also reported that the introduction of new animals to a herd had a strong association with an increased risk of disease in the herd. The results indicated that the prevalence of lumpy skin disease was high during wet season compared to dry season. From the findings the results indicated that the disease prevalence was high in wet season with 80% and 20% in dry season. This is in line with results of a cross-sectional; questionnaire-based study investigating the risk factors associated with the spread of LSD in Ethiopia has been carried out by (Gari et al., 2010).This is also in agreement with study done by (Thomas and Mare, 1945; Weiss, 1968) where outbreaks were associated with wet and warm weather conditions with an abundance of blood-feeding arthropod populations, and it was not possible to control the spread of the disease effectively by quarantine measures.

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.6.1. ConclusionIn the study area, lumpy skin disease occurred almost every year registering 84.24 % morbidity and 15.75% mortality. This is because most farmers do not respond to vaccination program and therefore the animals do not have endemic stability.

Also the fly population is not properly controlled since the strategies for controlling flies is not proper.

Milk production is most affected by the occurrence of lumpy skin disease in Karangazi sector simply because the mouth lesions interfere with feeding; milk production ceases, udder and teat lesions may result in serious infections with the sloughing of necrotic tissue. Skin lesions result in severe and permanent damage to hides, while lesions in the mouth, pharynx and respiratory tract cause a rapid deterioration in condition and sometimes severe emaciation, which may persist for months.
In Karangazi sector and some other parts of Rwanda, there is a problem of water in the farms. This really leads to sharing of the watering points and therefore facilitates the spread of lumpy skin disease by direct contact of infected cows with health ones. Also in Rwanda, farmers are stocking their farms with breeds for high milk production and therefore animals are bought from outside sector this also facilitates occurrence of lumpy skin disease in Karangazi sector.

Introduction of new cows and returning to the herd of unsold cows that have been in contact with infected animals at the market also facilitates the occurrence of lumpy skin disease in the area.

6.2. RECOMMENDATIONS.Local government.

There is need for local government to train farmers on record keeping such that the future researchers can obtain data which can be quantified.

MINAGRI.

Ministry of agriculture should improve linkage between farmers and veterinarians by allocating qualified veterinarians at sector level.

Sensitization of public on the effect of lumpy skin disease.

Farmers should be trained on how to harvest and conserve water especially rain water and storage in underground tanks.

Detailed study on the sero prevalence of lumpy skin disease in Rwanda is recommended.

7. REFERENCESBarnard, B. J., E. Munz, K. Dumbell and L. Prozesky, 1994. Lumpy Skin Disease. In: Infectious Diseases of Livestock with Special Reference to Southern Africa.

Brenner, J., M. Bellaiche, E. Gross, D. Elad, Z. Oved, M. Haimovitz, A. Wasserman, O. Friedgut, Y. Stram, V. Bumbarov, and H. Yadin, (2009): Appearance of skin lesions in cattle populations vaccinated against lumpy skin disease: statutory challenge. Vaccine 27, 1500–1503.
Carn, V.M. and R.P. Kitching. (1995). An investigation of possible routes of transmission of lumpy skin disease virus (Neethling). Epidemiology. Infect. Pp 219-226.
Chihota, C.M., L.F. Rennie, R.P. Kitching, and P.S. Mellor, 2001: Mechanical transmission of lumpy skin disease virus by Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Epidemiol. Infect. 126, 317–321.

Chihota, C.M., L.F. Rennie, R.P. Kitching, and P.S. Mellor, 2003: Attempted mechanical transmission of lumpy skin disease virus by biting insects. Med. Vet. Entomol. 17, 294–300.
Coetzer, J.A.W., 2004: Lumpy skin disease. In: Coetzer, J.A.W. and R.C. Tustin (eds), Infectious Diseases of Livestock, 2nd edn, pp. 1268–1276. University Press
Coetzer, J.A.W., G.R. Thomson and R.C. Tustin (Eds.) Brenner, J., M. Bellaiche, E. Gross, D. Elad and Z. Oved et al., 2009. Appearance of skin lesions in cattle populations vaccinated against lumpy skin disease: Statutory challenge. Vaccine, 27: 1500-1503.

Davies, F.G., 1982: Observations on the epidemiology of lumpy skin disease in Kenya J. Hyg. 88, 95–102.

Davies, F.G., 1991. Lumpy skin disease of cattle: A growing problem in Africa and the Near East.
Diesel, A.M. (1949). The epizootiology of lumpy skin disease in South Africa. Proc. 14th Int. Vet. Cong., London, Pp 492-500.
Gakenke, sector; (2012).Six sectors in quarantine over lumpy skin cattle disease. Accessed on 21st April 2013 from www.umworozi.com/2012/05/.Lumpy skin cattle disease.

Gari, G., A. Waret-Szkuta, V. Grosbois, P. Jacquiet, and F. Roger,( 2010): Risk factors associated with observed clinical lumpy skin disease in Ethiopia. Epidemiol. Infect. Pp 138, 1657–1666.
Green, H.F., 1959: Lumpy skin disease: its effect on hides and leather and a comparison on this respect with some other skin diseases. Bull. Epizoot. Dis. Afr. 7,63.
Greth, A., Gourreau, J. M. Vassart, M. Ba-Uy, N. Wyers, M. and Lefevre, P. C. (1992). Capri poxvirus disease in an Arabian Oryx (Oryx leucoryx) from Saudi Arabia. J. Wildlife Dis. Pp 295-300.
Hunter, P., and D. Wallace, 2001: Lumpy skin disease in southern Africa: a review of the disease and aspects of control. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 72, 68–71.

Kaurivi-katunahange.B, 2011.Lumpy skin disease the talk of the Nation. Accessed on 25/6/2013 from www.the villager.com.na/articles/468/lumpy skin disease the talk of the nation. Southern Africa, Oxford.

Kitching, P.R. ; Mellor, P.S. (1986). Insect transmission of Capri pox viruses. Res. Vet. Sci., 40: 255-258.
Kitching, R.P., 2003: Vaccines for lumpy skin disease, sheep pox and goat pox. Vacines for OIE list A and emerging animal diseases.

MacDonald, R.S.A. Pseudo-urticaria of cattle. North Rhodesian Dept. Anim. Healt. Ann. Report 1930.
MacOwan, K.D.S. (1959). Observations on the epizootiology of lumpy skin disease during the first year of its occurrence in Kenya. Bull. Epizootic Dis. of Africa, Pp7-20.
Nyagatare District, (2006). Map of Nyagatare District. Accessed on 11th April 2013 from www.nyagatare.gov.rw.
Nyagatare District, (2013). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Nyagatare district. Accessed on 5th march 2013 from www.nyagatare.gov.rw.

Office International Des Epizooties, World Animal Health 5: 703. 1990.

Ordner, G. and Lefervre, P. C. (1978). La dermatose nodulaire contagieuse des bovines. Etudes et sytheses de l’Institut d’Elevage et de Médicine Vétérinaire Tropicale, Maison-Alfort, Paris, pp 92.
Rweyemamu, M., R. Paskin, A. Benkirane, V. Martin, P. Roeder, and K. Wojciechowski, (2000): Emerging diseases of Africa and the Middle East. In: House, J.A., K.M. Kocan, and E.P.J. Gibbs (eds), Tropical Veterinary Diseases – Control and Prevention in the Context of the New World Order, pp. 61–70. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, New York.

Shimshony, A., (1989).Lumpy skin disease. Israeli Veterinary Services Epidemiol. Quart. (3) pp. 5-7 (in Hebrew).

Shimshony, A., and P. Economides, (2006): Disease prevention and preparedness for animal health emergencies in the Middle East. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epizoot. Pp 25, 253–269.
Von Backstrom, 1945; Thomas and Mare, 1945; Diesel, 1949; MacOwan, 1959; Weiss, 1968. Most infection is thought to be the result of insect transmission of the virus.

Von Backstromm, U,(1945). Ngamiland cattle disease: Preliminary report on a new disease, the aethiological agent being probably of an infectious nature. J. South Afr. Vet. Med. Assoc. 16:pp 20-35.
Yeruham, I., Nir, O., Braverman, Y., Davidson, M., Grinstein H., Hymovitch, M. and Zamir, O. (1995.). Spread of lumpy skin disease in Israel dairy herds. Vet Rec. 137: 91-93.
8. APPENDICES
APPENDIX SEQ APPENDIX * ARABIC 1: QUESTIONNAIRE FORMDear Sir/ Madam,
Iam researcher and a student of Umutara polytechnic University, from the faculty of veterinary medicine.

Iam carrying out A SURVEY ON PREVALENCE OF LUMPY SKIN DISEASE
OF CATTLE IN KARANGAZI SECTOR of Nyagatare district.

I intend to use information you will provide to me for strictly academic purposes only
and it will remain confidential.

Thank you for your assistance.

ASURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FORM OF LUMPY SKIN DISEASE.

I. Survey form for farmers who experienced disease and those who did not.A. Personal information of the participant
Name…………………………………….

Village……………………………………
Cell………………………………………
Sector………………………………
Date of interview…………………………….

Sex: Male Female
Age group 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-Above
Main occupation: trader farmer civil servant
   
B. Cattle production
1. Mode of rearing: extensive intensive semi- intensive
Zero grazing
2. Do you know about LSD?
Yes No
If yes, how did you come to know it?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

If no, what do you know about the disease?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

3. Have you ever experienced LSD in your farm?
Yes No
4. In which year and at what time of the year did you register LSD in your herd the first time? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

5. How many cattle did you have?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

6. How many sick animals did you registered among your cattle/herd?
…………………………………………………………………………..

7. How many animals died on your farm due to LSD?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8. After that outbreak, did LSD reoccur in the following years?
Yes No  if yes, give details of those years and the number of diseased and dead animals registered.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9. What are the possible sources or origin of LSD in your farm?  Introducing a new animal Yes NoDirect contact of infected animal with other animals Yes No
 By unknown cause Yes No
10.     Which type of livestock LSD attack mostly?
 Cattle small ruminants
11. The disease attack:          Young adults all ages          Males Females both sex
Breed: Ankole cross breeds Exotic breeds
12. What are the preventive measures did you put in place to avoid transmission to neighbouring farms or from other sources?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………….13. The disease appears in the season: dry wet
14. Does the disease exist in other sectors?
Yes No If yes, please specify those sectors
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

15. What are socio-economic losses caused by LSD?
(i) Loss of milk production Yes No
(ii) Damage of skin Yes No
(iii)Cost of treatment Yes No
(iv) Abortion of pregnant animals Yes No
II. Survey form for veterinary livestock officers at sector and district levelDate: ………………………………………. Name and surname of the livestock/veterinary technician………………………………………… Cell: ……………………………….

Sector: …………………………….
1. In which year and at what time of the year, LSD appeared in this area?
2OO9 2010 2011 2012
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

2. How many farms have you registered in your sector?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 3. After that outbreak did LSD reappear in other years?         Yes No    
If yes, give details on those years and the number of patients and deaths registered …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

4. The disease occurred in your area by:
Introduction of new animals
Direct contact between the animals (at gathering points: markets, watering points.)
From neighbouring sectors
By a visitor from another farm
Others
Explain your answer
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
5. What are the preventive and control measures that have been in place? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

6. Does disease exist in other sectors?     Yes No
If yes, please specify those sectors
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

7. The disease appears in the season:  Warm wet
 8. What is the progression of the disease from one farm to another and from one cell to another?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9. Why do you think the disease is not eradicated completely? (Persistence factors) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 10. Which policy do you use to control and eradicate the disease and which improvement suggestions can add to that policy?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 III. Survey form for personal in charge of quarantine (RAB)
Date: ………………………………………………………….. Full name of agent: …………………………………………
1. In which year and at what time of the year did LSD appear in this area?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. In your opinion, what are the origins (sources) and virulent material LSD in this area? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3. What are the preventive and control measures that have been in place?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

4. Whenever an outbreak occurs, the disease progresses rapidly or slowly in herds?        Comments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5. What are the factors of persistence of LSD in Nyagatare district?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6. What are politics and means do you see that are most effective to control and eradicate the disease?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

APPENDIX SEQ APPENDIX * ARABIC 2: ANIMALS WITH LUMPY SKIN LESIONS.
-45720099060
Source, Davies, F.G., (1991). Ulcers all over the skin in later stages, typical sit fast at the left nostril, ocular discharge and corneal opacity.
-457200198120
Source, Davies, F.G., (1991). LSD nodules on local cow and LSD nodules on the neck of a cross breed cow.

Post Author: admin