A cross-sectional study was conducted to determine the seroprevalence and potential risk factors of camel brucellosis and to assess public health awareness of the disease in the selected kebele of Arero District, Borena Zone, Southern Ethiopia. A total of 313 blood samples were collected from selected camels using a systematic random sampling technique. The serum samples underwent initial screening for brucellosis using the rose Bengal plate test (RBPT), with further confirmation through the indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent Assay (i-ELISA). The overall seroprevalence of camel brucellosis was 7.66% using RBPT and 2.24% using i-ELISA. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses revealed significant associations; female camels (OR = 30.16, p = 0.05) and mixing camels with other animal species (OR = 0.019, p = 0.001 by i-ELISA) were significantly linked to camel seropositivity for Brucella infection. Assessment of public health perception and awareness from 227 owners indicated limited awareness; most respondents lacked knowledge about brucellosis (94.27%), 82.82% were unaware of raw meat risks, 94.27% did not know about brucellosis being zoonotic, and 18.94% consumed raw milk with blood. The majority (94.71%) practiced bare-handed calving, with 93.39% handling abortion materials, rarely isolating infected camels. The study found a moderate prevalence of brucellosis among camels in the study areas. Lack of implemented control strategies, combined with local pastoral practices, could potentially contribute to disease spread. Therefore, there should be continuous efforts of the disease control strategy at the animal level, community awareness creation, separation of infected camels from health heard, and avoiding mixing a camel with other animal species.

1. Introduction

Camels are versatile, vital domestic animals that are best adapted to dry environmental conditions prevailing in extreme semi-arid and arid areas worldwide. They are endowed with extremely extraordinary features that enable them to survive and perform under extremely harsh conditions [1]. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Corporate Statistical Database (FAOSTAT), Somalia has the highest camel population globally, followed by Sudan, Kenya, and Ethiopia [2]. According to the recent reports of central statistics agency of Ethiopia, the current camel population in Ethiopia is estimated to be more than 2.4 million [3, 4].

Camels are integral to Ethiopia’s pastoral regions, particularly in adapting to environmental challenges such as droughts and land degradation [5]. They thrive in arid areas, supporting livelihoods by providing milk, food, income, and transportation, even on less fertile lands [6]. Their extended lactation and consistent milk production during dry spells enhance their economic value [7, 8].

Despite its advantages, camel farming faces significant challenges, particularly infectious diseases such as brucellosis, which impacts both animal and human health [9, 10]. Brucellosis, caused mainly by Brucella abortus and Brucella melitensis, is a widespread zoonosis prevalent in Africa, Asia, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East [11–17]. In Ethiopia, it causes economic losses due to reduced milk production, infertility, and reproductive issues such as abortion and delayed calving [18–23]. A significant economic loss due to camel brucellosis was attributed to abortion or perinatal mortality of calves (341,325 ETB) in the Elwayye District, southern Ethiopia [20]. In a separate study conducted in the Mehoni District, southeastern Tigray, Ethiopia, the estimated economic loss caused by camel brucellosis was calculated at 429,351.48 ETB (21,467.56 USD) per infected camel aged over 4 years [21]. These pilot assessments highlight a substantial economic burden on the pastoral community and the national livestock industry as a whole. The disease often spreads when camels interact with infected ruminants, with bacteria entering through inhalation, ingestion, or mucous membranes, leading to inflammation and reproductive failure [15, 17, 24].

The impact of brucellosis is concerning in pastoral regions due to limited awareness of its zoonotic importance [25]. Recognized by FAO, World Health Organization (WHO), and World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH), camel brucellosis stands as a highly contagious and economically significant zoonotic disease globally [26]. Infected camels and livestock pose risks to human populations through contact with birthing materials, consumption of unpasteurized dairy, among other routes. Pastoralists in these areas face heightened infection risks due to the absence of disease control strategies [18, 27].

Camel husbandry thrives in Ethiopia’s eastern and southern regions, such as Afar, Somali, and Borena, sustaining pastoral communities’ livelihoods. Brucellosis, a significant economic and public health challenge in these areas, has been reported with varying prevalence across different agroecologies. Previous studies reported 2.4% prevalence in the Somali region [28] and 2.09% in other parts of Ethiopia [29]. Higher rates were observed in Afar (5.4%) and southeastern Tigray (3.67%) [30, 31], while lower rates were noted in the Borena Zone (0.9%) [32], Tigray (1.5%) [33], and Hararghe regions (1.53%) [34]. At the herd level, this study found seroprevalence rates of 0.0%, 33.3%, and 23.8% for small, medium, and large herds, respectively, aligning with the 16% herd-level prevalence reported by Bekele in the Borena lowlands [35] but exceeding 6.9% reported by Jara et al. in the same zone [36]. Variations in prevalence may stem from ecological differences, herd management practices, diagnostic methods, and increased cross-species contact, particularly during calving or abortion periods, which heighten the risk of Brucella spread [37]. Effectively controlling camel brucellosis requires diagnostic and surveillance systems and evaluating cost-effective control measures [38, 39].

Despite a substantial camel population in Ethiopia’s pastoral areas, information on camel brucellosis prevalence and management practices is still limited [28, 39]. Disease control efforts are lacking in many regions, reflecting a research gap with scarce published reports on camel brucellosis prevalence. On top of economic loss, close human-animal contact and raw animal product consumption pose significant zoonotic risks, particularly in pastoral regions, calling for thorough epidemiological investigations to identify key risk factors influencing disease occurrence. A study on the seroprevalence and risk factors for human brucellosis in pastoralists in Afar, Ethiopia, revealed a 16.5% seroprevalence of brucellosis among 91 human serum samples analyzed. Notably, 86.7% of the positive cases were female, and the highest proportion of seropositive individuals was observed in those under 15 years old [40]. Another study on zoonotic risks of camel brucellosis in Afar region showed 7.6% seroprevalence of brucellosis in camel and 10% of camel owners for which occupation and nonprotective handling of dystocia cases significantly association with Brucella seropositivity [41]. In both studies, most cases were linked to close contact with animals, consumption of raw milk, and handling parturient materials, underscoring the zoonotic risk of brucellosis in camel-producing areas of Ethiopia. Therefore, the present study investigates the seroprevalence, associated risk factors, and public health perception of camel brucellosis in Arero District of Borena Zone, Southern Ethiopia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Arero District, situated approximately 100 km from Yabello town along the Addis Ababa–Moyale main road, is part of the Borena Zone in the Oromia region (Figure 1). It shares borders with Dubuluk, Yabello, Gomole, the Guji zone, Somali region, Wachile District, and Das District, separated by the Dawa Ganale River. The district spans altitudes from 710 to 1789 m above sea level. Its population consists of approximately 95,404 individuals, primarily rural (89.5%), with an urban population of 10.5%. Covering an area of about 10,841.88 square kilometers, Arero hosts a livestock population including 44,193 camels, 193,693 cattle, 110,585 goats, and 49,691 sheep. The study included 313 camels during this period, as reported by the Arero District Livestock and Resources Development Bureau (ADLRDB) in 2020 [42].

Details are in the caption following the image — **Figure 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

Location map of the study area [42].

2.2. Study Population

The study population was indigenous camel breeds (Borena breed) of both sexes with 6 months or above age that were kept under traditional (extensive) management systems in the eight peasant associations of the district.

2.3. Sample Size Determination

The required sample size (n) was determined using the 3% previous prevalence in the relative area of the study area [36] and 95% confidence interval with 5% precision according to Thrusfield [43]. Therefore, the calculated sample size was 45; however, the calculated sample size was increased to 313 to improve the study precision and decrease the possible bias. Hence, a total of 313 camels were considered for this study from selected kebeles of Arero District.

2.4. Sampling Technique

In the present study, multistage sampling was used to address the logistical challenges and lack of comprehensive sampling frames associated with the nomadic nature of pastoral production systems. According to Dohoo et al. [44], this method enabled the selection of samples through hierarchical stages, starting from regions to communities and finally individual herds or animals, ensuring feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and statistical rigor. The district was purposively selected based on accessibility, distribution of the camel population, occurrences of abortion outbreaks, and the absence of specific research on camel brucellosis in the study area. The purposive selection of the district based on accessibility, camel distribution, abortion outbreaks, and the absence of prior research enhances the external validity of the study by ensuring that the study area represents key characteristics of camel-rearing pastoral systems with a high likelihood of brucellosis presence. These factors improve the relevance of the findings to similar pastoral settings and populations, allowing for broader generalizability while addressing gaps in the existing research.

After districts were selected, kebeles, villages, and herds were chosen using simple random sampling techniques, while individual animals were selected through systematic random sampling. Kebeles and villages were considered primary units, herds as secondary units, and individual animals as tertiary units. As per the local animal office, the number of villages in each kebele varied from 8 to 10, with 18–30 households within each village. The herds in the selected villages were listed with the assistance of local animal health workers. A total of 76 herds existed in all eight selected kebeles, of which 42 were randomly chosen from Guto (7 herds), H/dimtu (4), K/gumata (6), Renji (6), Oroto (4), Silala (5), Fuldowa (5), and Bobele (5). Subsequently, four to seven animals were selected using systematic random sampling from each of the chosen herds, encompassing both sexes and camels above 6 months of age. Information regarding individual animals, including sex, age, body condition, abortion history, physiological status, retention of fetal membrane, interaction with other species, and parity, was recorded. To assess the pastoralists’ disease awareness, 227 pastoral attendants from the aforementioned herds who agreed to be interviewed participated in the study.

2.5. Sample Collection and Laboratory Analysis

Ten milliliters of blood were collected from each animal’s jugular vein using sterile needles and plain vacutainer tubes. Samples stood overnight at room temperature, and sera were decanted into cryovials, transported to the Yabello Regional Veterinary Laboratory in ice packs, and stored at −20°C for antibody screening.

2.5.1. Serological Laboratory Techniques

Two serological tests were sequentially applied for increased accuracy: RBPT served as a screening tool due to cost-effectiveness and high sensitivity, while i-ELISA provided high specificity and distinguished false-positive cross-reactions from Brucella infections [45]. RBPT was performed on collected sera using commercially prepared Brucella antigens following WOAH procedures [46]. Agglutination reactions were observed and classified as positive or negative. RBPT-positive samples underwent confirmation using i-ELISA, a commercially available assay employing B. abortus antigens. Results were expressed as an OD ratio for confirmation.

2.6. Questionnaire Survey

A semistructured questionnaire was developed based on previous studies that assessed the seroprevalence, associated risk factors, and zoonotic transmission risks of brucellosis from camels to humans [36, 41, 47]. The collected information covers animal-related risk factors such as animal age, history of abortion, contact with other ruminants, experience in camel rearing, and public risk factors including the consumption of raw milk, handling of aborted fetuses, exposure to vaginal discharges from infected camels, and knowledge of brucellosis and its zoonotic significance. Due to technical limitation of professionals to collect human samples, the present study did not investigate disease status in humans.

2.7. Data Management and Analysis

Data from both surveys and laboratory tests were recorded in Microsoft Excel and analyzed using STATA 9.0. Seroprevalence was determined, and associations between Brucella seropositivity and various risk factors were explored through multivariable logistic regression, considering variables with a p value ≤ 0.05 as significantly associated with brucellosis.

3. Results

3.1. Seroprevalence of Camel Brucellosis

Out of the 313 serum samples examined, 24 (7.7%) of them were found to be positive for brucellosis by the RBP screening test. However, of the 24 RBPT positive sera, only 7 (2.2%) were confirmed with the i-ELISA. Therefore, the overall individual-level seroprevalence of camel brucellosis in the study was found to be 2.2% (Table 1).

Table 1. Seroprevalence of camel brucellosis stratified by locality, age, and sex.

Variables	Category	No. of animals examined	No. of (%) animals positive		95% CI for RBPT	95% CI for i-ELISA
Variables	Category	No. of animals examined	RBPT	i-ELISA	95% CI for RBPT	95% CI for i-ELISA
Kebele	Silala	39	7 (17.9)	0 (0.0)	11.5–28.8	0.0–10.4
	Guto	39	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0.0–10.4	0.0–10.4
	H/Dimtu	30	3 (10.0)	3 (10.0)	3.4–21.3	3.4–21.3
	K/Gumata	40	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0.0–10.9	0.0–10.9
	Renji	30	2 (6.7)	1 (3.3)	1.6–17.4	0.2–14.5
	Bobela	40	3 (7.5)	0 (0.0)	1.9–19.1	0.0–10.4
	Fuldowa	53	5 (9.4)	3 (5.7)	3.7–21.2	1.5–16.6
	Oroto	51	4 (7.8)	0 (0.0)	2.6–16.3	0.0–10.9

Sex	Female	274	19 (96.9)	4 (1.5)	94.0–99.2	0.7–3.8
Sex	Male	39	5 (12.8)	3 (7.7)	4.0–26.4	1.2–23.1

Age	Young	73	7 (9.6)	3 (4.1)	3.4–19.2	0.7–13.3
Age	Adult	240	17 (7.1)	4 (1.7)	4.0–11.1	0.7–4.1

BCS	Poor	74	5 (6.8)	0 (0.0)	2.5–14.2	0.0–8.8
	Medium	169	13 (7.7)	4 (2.4)	4.8–12.7	1.0–6.3
	Good	70	6 (8.6)	3 (4.3)	3.8–16.3	1.2–12.6

Abbreviations: BCS, body condition score; CI, confidence interval; i-ELISA, indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; RBPT, rose Bengal plate test.

In terms of locality, camel brucellosis seropositivity was notably the highest in H/Dimtu (10.0%), followed by Fuldowa (5.7%) and Renji (3.3%), while none of the other studied kebeles (Silala, Guto, K/Gumata, Bobela, and Oroto) tested positive based on the i-ELISA results. This outcome showed statistical significance prevalence among the localities (p = 0.027). A significantly higher seroprevalence of camel brucellosis in male animals compared to female animals was recorded (p = 0.014), while comparable seroprevalence was observed among animals with medium and good body condition (Table 1). Among the 42 examined camel herds, 7 tested positive using the i-ELISA test. Thus, the overall herd-level seroprevalence of camel brucellosis in the study area was 16.7% (Table 2).

Table 2. Herd-level seroprevalence of camel brucellosis.

Variables	Category	No. of herds examined	No. of animals examined	No. (%) of herds positive	No. (%) of animals positive
Variables	Category	No. of herds examined	No. of animals examined	i-ELISA	RBPT	i-ELISA
Herd	Small	12	29	0 (0.0)	1 (3.4)	0 (0.0)
	Medium	9	73	2 (33.3)	4 (5.5)	2 (2.7)
	Large	21	211	5 (23.8)	19 (9.0)	5 (2.4)

Abbreviations: i-ELISA, indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; RBPT, rose Bengal plate test.

3.2. Analysis of Risk Factors for Camel Brucellosis Seropositivity

Univariable analysis was undertaken for the 11 explanatory variables to see their association with camel brucellosis seropositivity (Table 3). Accordingly, the results of the univariable logistic regression analysis identified six risk factors to be significantly (p < 0.05) associated with seropositivity of camel brucellosis. However, there was no significant (p > 0.05) association observed between camel brucellosis seropositivity and the rest five explanatory variables (Table 3).

Table 3. Univariable logistic regression analysis of potential risk factors for camel Brucella seropositivity by i-ELISA.

Potential risk factors	Category	No examined	No. (%) of animals positive	B	p value	OR (95% CI)
Sex	Female	274	4 (1.5)	−1.727	0.028	0.18 (0.04–0.83)
Sex	Male	39	3 (7.7)	−1.727	0.028	0.18 (0.04–0.83)

Age	Young	73	3 (4.1)	0.928	0.232	0.40 (0.09–1.81)
Age	Adult	240	4 (1.7)	0.928	0.232	0.40 (0.09–1.81)

Kebele	Silala	39	0 (0.0)		0.993	Ref.
	Guto	39	0 (0.0)	19.01	0.998	—
	H/Dimtu	30	3 (10.0)	19.01	0.998	—
	K/Gumata	40	0 (0.0)	19.01	0.998	—
	Renji	30	1 (3.3)	−1.170	0.324	0.31 (0.03–3.17)
	Bobela	40	0 (0.0)	19.01	0.998	—
	Fuldowa	53	3 (5.7)	−0.616	0.469	0.54 (0.10–2.86)
	Oroto	51	0 (0.0)	19.01	0.998	—

BCS	Poor	74	5 (6.8)	—	0.732	Ref.
	Medium	169	13 (7.7)	18.1	0.997	—
	Good	70	6 (8.6)	−0.614	0.430	0.54 (0.12–2.48)

Abortion history	Yes	143	2 (1.4)	0.895	0.076	2.45 (0.91–6.57)
Abortion history	No	131	2 (1.5)	0.895	0.076	2.45 (0.91–6.57)

Contact with cattle	Yes	31	3 (9.7)	2.008	0.011	7.45 (1.59–34.96)
Contact with cattle	No	282	4 (1.4)	2.008	0.011	7.45 (1.59–34.96)

Contact with sheep and goat	Yes	37	4 (10.8)	2.401	0.002	11.03 (2.37–51.45)
Contact with sheep and goat	No	276	3 (1.1)	2.401	0.002	11.03 (2.37–51.45)

Herd size	Small	12	0 (0.0)	—	0.985	Ref.
	Medium	9	2 (33.3)	17.33	0.981	—
	Large	21	5 (23.8)	0.149	0.861	1.16 (0.22–6.12)

Retained fetal membrane	Yes	42	3 (7.1)	−2.877	0.014	0.06 (0.01–0.56)
Retained fetal membrane	No	232	1 (0.4)	−2.877	0.014	0.06 (0.01–0.56)

Parity	< 3	133	1 (0.75)	−2.678	0.018	0.07 (0.01–0.63)
Parity	≥ 3	241	2 (1.4)	−2.678	0.018	0.07 (0.01–0.63)

Physiological status	Dry off	139	1 (0.7)	—	0.137	Ref.
	Lactating	83	1 (1.2)	0.513	0.718	1.67 (0.10–27.07)
	Pregnant	52	2 (3.8)	1.701	0.169	5.48 (0.49–61.76)

Note: B, estimate.
Abbreviations: BCS, body condition score; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; Ref., reference; RFM, retained fetal membrane.

In the multivariable logistic regression model, no associations were found between camel brucellosis seropositivity and abortion history and parity (Table 4).

Table 4. Multivariable logistic regression analysis of significantly associated explanatory variables for camel Brucella seropositivity.

Explanatory variables	Category	No. of observations	No. (%) of positive with i-ELISA	B	p value	OR (95% CI)
Sex	Female	274	4 (1.5)	2.093	0.022	8.11 (1.35–48.72)
Sex	Male	39	3 (7.7)	2.093	0.022	8.11 (1.35–48.72)

Contact with sheep and goat	Yes	37	4 (10.8)	2.672	0.002	14.48 (2.56–81.79)
Contact with sheep and goat	No	276	3 (1.1)	2.672	0.002	14.48 (2.56–81.79)

Contact with cattle	Yes	31	3 (9.7)	1.864	0.033	6.45 (1.17–35.71)
Contact with cattle	No	282	4 (1.4)	1.864	0.033	6.45 (1.17–35.71)

RFM	Yes	42	3 (7.1)	−0.498	0.016	0.61 (0.09–3.94)
RFM	No	232	1 (0.4)	−0.498	0.016	0.61 (0.09–3.94)

Note: B, estimate.
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; i-ELISA, indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; OR, odds ratio; RFM, retained fetal membrane.

The multivariable regression analysis revealed that the odds of camel seropositivity for brucellosis was higher in female camels (p = 0.022; OR: 8.11; 95% CI: 1.35–48.72), in camels reared with cattle (p = 0.033; OR: 6.45; 95% CI: 1.17–35.71) and small ruminants (p = 0.002; OR: 14.48; 95% CI: 2.56–81.79), and in camels with a history of retained fetal membrane (p = 0.016; OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.09–3.94) than their counter parts (Table 4).

3.3. Camel Owners’ Awareness About Camel Brucellosis and Zoonosis

Questionnaire data were collected from 227 camel owners to assess their awareness regarding camel brucellosis and other zoonotic diseases. According to the data, the majority (94.27%) of camel owners had no information about brucellosis at both human and animal levels. Approximately 91.2% of the respondents reported habitual consumption of raw milk, with 18.9% consuming milk with blood. Moreover, roughly 82.8% of the respondents admitted to consuming raw or undercooked meat (Table 5). Remarkably, the majority (93.39%) of camel owners handled abortion and aborted material without adopting productive measures, while only 6.61% mentioned using protective materials such as plastic when dealing with abortion and aborted material. Furthermore, about 5.3% of camel owners had a practice of separating aborted camels from the herd, whereas the majority (94.71%) did not segregate aborted or diseased camels from the healthy herd. In addition, only a small fraction (5.3%) of the respondents were known to use protective materials when assisting animals during parturition (Table 5).

Table 5. Knowledge, understanding, and practice of camel owners regarding to camel brucellosis.

Assessments of awareness of owner	Category	Freq.	(%)
Consume raw meat	Yes	39	17.18
Consume raw meat	No	188	82.82

Awareness	Yes	13	5.73
Awareness	No	214	94.27

Consume milk with blood	Yes	43	18.94
Consume milk with blood	No	184	81.06

Handle abortion material	Yes	212	93.39
Handle abortion material	No	15	6.61

Separate aborted animals	Yes	12	5.29
Separate aborted animals	No	215	94.71

Assist during calving	Yes	215	94.71
Assist during calving	No	12	5.29

Consume raw milk	Yes	207	91.19
Consume raw milk	No	20	8.81

4. Discussion

Despite existing data on Brucella infections in humans and animals exist for Ethiopia and the Borena Zone [23, 48, 49], camel brucellosis status in our study area remains poorly understood. Our study detected camel brucellosis serologically in eight selected kebeles within the Arero District of the Borena pastoral area, Ethiopia. The 2.2% prevalence of camel brucellosis confirmed by iELISA in our study closely aligns with 2.4% and 2.09% rates reported in the Somali region [28] and other areas of Ethiopia [29] while slightly lower than the 3.7% recently reported in Elwayye District of Borena Zone [20]. However, our result was lower than rates reported in Afar and southeastern Tigray regions (5.4% and 3.67%, respectively) [30, 31], although still higher than the former report in the Borena Zone [32], Tigray [33], and Hararghe regions [34]. Similarities in prevalence might be due to shared pastoralist practices across the country while the differences could stem from various factors such as geographical, climatic variations, study design, and population differences [32, 33, 50]. It is worth mentioning that management systems, diagnostic tests used, and sampling strategies, as these could provide deeper insights into the discrepancies in prevalence rates of camel brucellosis.

As it is importantly accepted that brucellosis is considered as a disease of herd importance, coincidently, the present study revealed considerably higher prevalence of camel brucellosis at the herd level with a seroprevalence of 0.0%, 33.3%, and 23.8%, in small, medium, and large herd sizes, respectively. The 16.7% camel brucellosis seroprevalence observed in the current study was in accord with the 16% herd level seroprevalence previously reported from Borena lowlands by Bekele [35] and higher than the 6.9% previous study report from Borena Zone by Jara et al. [36]. The observed difference in the herd-level seroprevalence of camel brucellosis might be related to the actual individual animal–level prevalence of the disease and/or the variation in the actual herd size studied in the different studies [33, 34, 50]. The higher herd-level prevalence found in this study might be due to increased interaction between camel herds and other animals, particularly ruminants, in the study areas. Herding camels alongside cattle, sheep, and goats could heighten the chances of cross-species contact, potentially leading to Brucella spread, especially during calving or abortion periods when brucellosis contamination is more likely [37]. Increased interaction between camel herds and other ruminants, such as cattle, sheep, and goats, elevates the risk of Brucella transmission. A review on camel brucellosis highlights herd size and cohabitation with other ruminants as key risk factors [18]. Additional factors include increased species composition at the household level and the wet season [51]. Camels are infected through spillover from small ruminants and cattle [52]. A study on brucellosis in camels, small ruminants, and Somali pastoralists found that small ruminants from large herds were 5.01 times more likely to acquire Brucella spp. infection compared to those in smaller herds [52]. These findings suggest that an increased interaction between camel herds and other ruminants contributes to higher herd-level camel brucellosis prevalence.

Variations in seroprevalence across studies could also stem from test differences in sensitivity and specificity, agroecological variations, sample sizes, production systems, and study periods [53]. Understanding risk factors is a key for brucellosis control. Factors such as animal age, sex, breed, farm management, and farmer awareness impact brucellosis prevalence [54]. In our study, larger herd sizes showed more Brucella antibodies, likely due to increased transmission risk with higher stocking density postabortion or calving [55, 56]. However, antibody distribution among kebeles, animal age, body condition, physiological status, and parity remained consistent. This might relate to similar sample sizes across kebeles and could reflect the overall seroprevalence in the area and studied animals.

In the current study, animal’s sex was significantly associated with brucellosis seropositivity in which male animals are more likely (OR: 8.11) to be seropositive for brucellosis than females (p = 0.022; 95% CI: 1.35–48.72). This finding was in agreement with the previous report from Yabello District of the Borena Zone by Admasu and Kaynata [16, 57]. Conversely, Jara et al. [36] revealed that the likelihood of camel brucellosis seropositivity is higher in female animals than in males. The observed differences might be related to the difference in the management system, number of female and male animals in the herd, and serological tests employed among others [33, 34, 50]. Moreover, it was evidenced that female animals are generally more susceptible to brucellosis than males due to the fact that female animals are more under physiological stress and also could be attributed to the higher concentration of the sugar erythritol in females than in males [58]. Hence, the current result should be explained cautiously with potential biases due to the small number of male animals considered during the study period compared to their female counters.

The study also noted a diverse presence of camels, sheep, goats, and cattle in the area, potentially increasing disease transmission between these animals [35, 54]. Camels in herds with sheep and goats contact showed significantly higher brucellosis rates, more than 14 times the risk of those without such contact (p = 0.002; OR: 14.48; 95% CI: 2.56–81.79). Similarly, contact with cattle also increased brucellosis risk for camels (p = 0.033; OR: 6.45; 95% CI: 1.17–35.71). This might be due to shared pasture and watering points, enabling transmission from ruminants to camels, aligning with previous Ethiopian and international studies [23, 30, 48, 59, 60].

The increased risk of camel brucellosis transmission through contact with other animals such as cattle, sheep, and goats is well documented. Studies have showed that Brucella spp., particularly B. melitensis and B. abortus, can be transmitted between these species through direct contact or shared environments [52, 61]. Shared grazing lands and water sources are common in pastoral systems, facilitating the spread of the bacteria [62]. For instance, the same B. melitensis biovars were cultured from both camels and sheep sharing the same premises [63]. In addition, vectors such as ticks and flies can play a role in the transmission of brucellosis between different livestock species [52, 64]. These factors underscore the importance of integrated disease management strategies to control brucellosis across multiple species in pastoral communities.

The findings from the questionnaire survey highlight a critical lack of awareness among camel owners regarding the public health risks associated with brucellosis, which has serious implications for both animal and human health. The survey revealed that 82.82% of participants were unaware of the risks of consuming raw meat, and an alarming 94.27% lacked awareness of the zoonotic nature of brucellosis. These gaps in knowledge are particularly concerning in pastoral communities where traditional practices, such as consuming raw milk mixed with blood (reported by 18.94% of participants), are prevalent. The survey also uncovered that 94.71% of animal owners assisted with calving bare-handed, and 93.39% handled abortion materials without any protective measures. Such behaviors increase the risk of Brucella transmission both within camel herds and to humans, as infected birth products are known to be highly contagious [62, 65].

The lack of knowledge regarding the zoonotic nature of brucellosis is a significant public health concern. Brucellosis in humans, often referred to as undulant fever, can lead to debilitating chronic illnesses characterized by fever, joint pain, and fatigue, and it is frequently misdiagnosed due to its nonspecific symptoms [66]. This is particularly worrisome in pastoralist communities where raw milk and meat consumption is common, as these are primary transmission routes for Brucella spp. [64]. Studies from other regions, such as in Kenya and Sudan, with similar pastoralist lifestyles corroborate these findings, showing that human brucellosis cases are strongly associated with handling infected animals and consuming raw animal products [19, 62, 67].

The implications of these knowledge gaps are profound. They likely contribute to the ongoing transmission of brucellosis within camel herds and to humans, perpetuating a cycle of infection that is difficult to break without targeted interventions. Education campaigns tailored to pastoralist communities, emphasizing the zoonotic risks of brucellosis and the importance of protective measures, such as wearing gloves during calving and avoiding raw milk and meat, could significantly mitigate these risks. For example, community-based training programs in Tanzania have successfully improved awareness and reduced risky behaviors related to zoonotic diseases [68]. Veterinary outreach programs that include routine testing and isolation of infected animals, coupled with improved veterinary infrastructure, could further reduce transmission.

Comparisons with other regions revealed that knowledge gaps about brucellosis are widespread in pastoral settings, but the extent varies. In the Lega Hida area of Bale Pastoralist of Ethiopia, studies reported similar low awareness levels, with only 17% of livestock keepers knowing about zoonotic risk of camel brucellosis [22]. This underscores the need for region-specific strategies that address cultural practices and local epidemiological factors. Expanding public health initiatives and integrating brucellosis awareness into broader zoonotic disease education programs are essential steps toward improving both animal and human health outcomes in these communities.

5. Conclusion

The study identified a moderate seroprevalence of camel brucellosis in the Borena Zone, which is higher than previously reported findings in the region. While acknowledging the study’s methodological limitations, it successfully identified key risk factors associated with the disease’s prevalence. In addition, the findings highlighted significant gaps in community awareness regarding risky practices, such as consuming raw meat and milk, bare-handed handling of newborns and abortion materials, all of which contribute to the potential zoonotic transmission of brucellosis. These results underscore the importance of addressing camel brucellosis as a public health and livestock management concern in the region. To mitigate its impact, we recommend further comprehensive epidemiological studies, improved camel health management practices, community-based awareness campaigns on disease transmission risks, and the implementation of measures to isolate infected animals within herds.

Nomenclature

AMOS: Brucella abortus, melitensis, ovis, and suis
CDC: Center for Disease Control
CFT: Complement fixation test
CSA: Central Statistical Authority
i-ELISA: Indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization
IgG: Immunoglobin G
IgM: Immunoglobin M
LPS: Lipopolysaccharide
PCR: Polymerase chain reaction
RBPT: Rose Bengal plate test
R-LPS: Rough lipopolysaccharide
S-LPS: Smooth lipopolysaccharide
USA: United States of America
WHO: World Health Organization
WOAH: Office of International Epizootics World Organization for Animal Health

Ethics Statement

The study was approved by the research review committee of the faculty of veterinary medicine, Hawassa University.

Consent

Informed consent was obtained for questionary survey as well as sample collection to keep the confidentiality of the herd and animal owners. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Author Contributions

Gemechu Chala Hunderra and Sultan Abda Neja: conceptualizing the study, supervision, and drafting the manuscript. Wario Waji Edema: data curation and laboratory analysis. Sultan Abda Neja: data analysis and writing–review and editing the mauscript.

Funding

No funding was received for this manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express gratitude to the Hawassa University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Yabello Regional Veterinary Laboratory for providing the necessary logistics for this research. They also extend thanks to Dr. Golo Dabasa and other laboratory staff for their positive cooperation during the analysis. Additionally, the authors are thankful to Mr. Asnake Faris, Boru Huka, and Mr. Mohamed Jatan for their assistance in collecting field data and processing serum, as well as to Dr. Galma Liban and Mr. Huka for their support in laboratory procedures. Appreciation is also extended to all other study participants.

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

1 Tefera M. and Gebreah F., A Study on the Productivity and Diseases of Camels in Eastern Ethiopia, Tropical Animal Health and Production. (2001) 33, no. 4, 265–274, https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010580416485, 2-s2.0-0034932077.
10.1023/A:1010580416485
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
2 Faostat, Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database (FAOSTAT), 2024, https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#search/camels.
Google Scholar
3 Csa, CSA (Central Statistical Authority). 2004–2020, Annual Agricultural Sample Survey Report Series (From 2004 to 2020). (2020) CSA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, https://www.csa.gov.et.
Google Scholar
4 Megersa B., Temesgen W., Amenu K. et al., Camels in Ethiopia: An Overview of Demography, Productivity, Socio-Economic Value and Diseases, 2024.
Google Scholar
5 Biffa D., Camel and the Changing System of Borena Pastoral Production.
Google Scholar
6 Alamian S. and Dadar M., Brucella Abortus Contamination of Camel Milk in Two Iranian Regions, Preventive Veterinary Medicine. (2019) 169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104708, 2-s2.0-85067503434.
10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104708
PubMed Google Scholar
7 Yagil R., The Desert Camel. Comparative Physiological Adaptation, 1985, Karger.
Google Scholar
8 Abdurahman O. A. S., Bruntse A., Farah Z. et al., Milk And Meat from the Camel: Handbook on Products and Processing: Vdf Hochschulverlag AG, 2004.
Google Scholar
9 Köhler-Rollefson I., Mundy P., and Mathias E., A Field Manual of Camel Diseases: Traditional and Modern Health Care for the Dromedary, 2001, ITDG publishing.
10.3362/9781780441153
Google Scholar
10 Abbas B. and Tilley P., Pastoral Management for Protecting Ecological Balance in Halaib District, Red Sea Province, Sudan, Nomadic Peoples. (1991) 77–86.
Google Scholar
11 Pappas G. and Memish Z., Brucellosis in the Middle East: a Persistent Medical, Socioeconomic and Political Issue, Journal of Chemotherapy. (2007) 19, no. 3, 243–248, https://doi.org/10.1179/joc.2007.19.3.243, 2-s2.0-34447548560.
10.1179/joc.2007.19.3.243
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Seimenis A., Araj G. F., Moriyón I., and Tabbaa D., Brucellosis Prevention and Control in the Mediterranean and the Middle East Regions-A Guidance towards Approaching the Targets, 2019.
Google Scholar
13 Suresh K. P., Patil S. S., Nayak A. et al., Prevalence of Brucellosis in Livestock of African and Asian Continents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Frontiers in Veterinary Science. (2022) 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.923657.
10.3389/fvets.2022.923657
PubMed Google Scholar
14 Lokamar P. N., Kutwah M. A., Atieli H., Gumo S., and Ouma C., Socio-economic Impacts of Brucellosis on Livestock Production and Reproduction Performance in Koibatek and Marigat Regions, Baringo County, Kenya, BMC Veterinary Research. (February 2020) 16, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-020-02283-w.
10.1186/s12917-020-02283-w
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Dadar M., Shahali Y., Omar S. S., Fakhri Y., Godfroid J., and Khaneghah A. M., The Prevalence of Camel Brucellosis and Associated Risk Factors: a Global Meta-Epidemiological Study, Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops & Foods. (2022) 14, no. 3, 55–93, https://doi.org/10.15586/qas.v14i3.1088.
10.15586/qas.v14i3.1088
Google Scholar
16 Mohammed A., Ahmed M., Osman Ahmed A. et al., Seroprevalence and Risk Factors of Brucellosis in Dromedary Camels (Camelus dromedarius) in Sudan from 1980 to 2020: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Veterinary Quarterly. (2023) 43, no. 1, 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1080/01652176.2023.2248233.
10.1080/01652176.2023.2248233
PubMed Google Scholar
17 Hughes E. C. and Anderson N. E., Zoonotic Pathogens of Dromedary Camels in Kenya: a Systematised Review, Veterinary sciences. (2020) 7, no. 3, https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci7030103.
10.3390/vetsci7030103
PubMed Google Scholar
18 Sprague L. D., Al-Dahouk S., and Neubauer H., A Review on Camel Brucellosis: a Zoonosis Sustained by Ignorance and Indifference, Pathogens and Global Health. (July 2012) 106, no. 3, 144–149, https://doi.org/10.1179/2047773212y.0000000020, 2-s2.0-84866651966.
10.1179/2047773212Y.0000000020
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Musa M., Eisa M., El Sanousi E. M., Abdel Wahab M., and Perrett L., Brucellosis in Camels (Camelus dromedarius) in Darfur, Western Sudan, Journal of Comparative Pathology. (2008) 138, no. 2-3, 151–155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpa.2007.10.005, 2-s2.0-40649084841.
10.1016/j.jcpa.2007.10.005
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20 Wario G. D., Wubaye A. M., Mohammed C., and Beriso T. E., Sero-prevalence, Associated Risk Factors and Economic Impact of Camel Brucellosis in Elwayye District, Southern Ethiopia, Comparative Immunology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. (2024) 114, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cimid.2024.102257.
10.1016/j.cimid.2024.102257
PubMed Google Scholar
21 Habtamu T., Richard B., Dana H., and Kassaw A., Camel Brucellosis: its Public Health and Economic Impact in Pastoralists, Mehoni District, Southeastern Tigray, Ethiopia, Journal of Microbiology Research. (2015) 5, no. 5, 149–156.
Google Scholar
22 Aliyi S., Aragaw K., and Geinoro T., Brucella Exposure in Camels and Health Impact in Lega Hida, Ethiopia: Seroprevalence, Risk Factors, and Public Perception, Journal of Zoonotic Diseases. (2024) .
Google Scholar
23 Tadesse G., Brucellosis Seropositivity in Animals and Humans in Ethiopia: A Meta-Analysis, PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. (2016) 10, no. 10, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005006, 2-s2.0-85021857635.
10.1371/journal.pntd.0005006
Google Scholar
24 Jafer M., Mengistu D. S., Eshetu A., and Belina D., Sero-Prevalence of Brucellosis in Camels and Febrile Human Patients Attending Health Facilities in Selected Districts of Eastern Ethiopia, 2018.
Google Scholar
25 Fowler M., Medicine and Surgery of Camelids, 2011, John Wiley & Sons.
Google Scholar
26 Schelling E., Diguimbaye C., Daoud S. et al., Brucellosis and Q-Fever Seroprevalences of Nomadic Pastoralists and Their Livestock in Chad, Preventive Veterinary Medicine. (2003) 61, no. 4, 279–293, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2003.08.004, 2-s2.0-0345377660.
10.1016/j.prevetmed.2003.08.004
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27 Skalsky K., Yahav D., Bishara J., Pitlik S., Leibovici L., and Paul M., Treatment of Human Brucellosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials, BMJ. (2008) 336, no. 7646, 701–704, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39497.500903.25, 2-s2.0-41649105697.
10.1136/bmj.39497.500903.25
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28 Tilahun B., Bekana M., Belihu K., and Zewdu E., Camel Brucellosis and Management Practices in Jijiga and Babile Districts, Eastern Ethiopia, Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health. (2013) 5, no. 3, 81–86.
Google Scholar
29 Zeru F., Gebrezgabher W., Dessalegn K. et al., Prevalence and Risk Factor of Brucellosis in Dromedaries in Selected Pastoral Districts of Afar, Northeastern Ethiopia, Prevalence. (2016) 6, no. 1.
Google Scholar
30 Bekele W. A., Tessema T. S., and Melaku S. K., Camelus dromedarius Brucellosis and its Public Health Associated Risks in the Afar National Regional State in Northeastern Ethiopia, Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica. (2013) 55, no. 1, 89–98, https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-55-89, 2-s2.0-85027956543.
10.1186/1751-0147-55-89
PubMed Google Scholar
31 Scholar E. T. and Tarekegn H. T., Sero-epidemiological Study of Camel Brucellosis in Mehoni District, South Eastern Tigray, Ethiopia.
Google Scholar
32 Gumi B., Firdessa R., Yamuah L. et al., Seroprevalence of Brucellosis and Q-Fever in Southeast Ethiopian Pastoral Livestock, Journal of veterinary science & medical diagnosis. (2013) 2, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.4172/2325-9590.1000109.
10.4172/2325-9590.1000109
PubMed Google Scholar
33 Warsame I., Alemu S., Temesgen W., and Molla W., Seroprevalence and Associated Risk Factors of Camel (Camelus Dromedaries) Brucellosis in and Around Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, 2020.
Google Scholar
34 Robayo Y. and Esubalew S., Seroprevalence and Associated Risk Factors of Brucellosis in Camels Kept under Pastoral Management in Fafen Zone, Somali Regional State, Ethiopia, Int. J. Livest. Res. (2017) 7, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20161118073604.
10.5455/ijlr.20161118073604
Google Scholar
35 Bekele M., Sero-epidemiological Study of Brucellosis in Camels (Camelus dromedarius) in Borena Lowland Pastoral Areas, Southern Ethiopia, 2004, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Addis Ababa University, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia.
Google Scholar
36 Jara R., Alemayehu M., Wubishet Z., Mesfin T., and Araya M., Sero-prevalence and Associated Risk Factors of Camel Brucellosis in Southern Lowland of Ethiopia, Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Research. (2020) 7, no. 1.
Google Scholar
37 Mohammed M. A., Shigidy M. T., and juboori A. Y. A., Sero-prevalence and Epidemiology of Brucellosis in Camels, Sheep and Goats in Abu Dhabi Emirate, International Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances. (2013) 5, no. 2, 82–86, https://doi.org/10.19026/ijava.5.5581.
10.19026/ijava.5.5581
Google Scholar
38 Hadush A. and Pal M., Brucellosis-An Infectious Re-emerging Bacterial Zoonosis of Global Importance, International Journal of Livestock Research. (2013) 3, no. 1, 28–34, https://doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20130305064802.
10.5455/ijlr.20130305064802
Google Scholar
39 Hadush A., Pal M., Kassa T., and Zeru F., Sero-epidemiology of Camel Brucellosis in the Afar Region of Northeast Ethiopia, Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health. (2013) 5, no. 9, 269–275.
Google Scholar
40 Ahmed E. Y., Abraham Ali A. A., Arthuro Mesfin A. M., Assefa Deressa A. D., and Tewodros Girmaye T. G., Brucellosis as a Zoonosis in Chifra District, Afar Regional State, Ethiopia, 2008.
Google Scholar
41 Wegi F. G., Amenu K., Chalchisa A., and Mamo G., Brucellosis in Camels and Humans: Seroprevalence and Associated Risk Factors in Amibara District of Afar Region, Ethiopia, Veterinary Medicine International. (2021) 2021, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5482725.
10.1155/2021/5482725
Google Scholar
42 Adlrdb, Arero District Livestock and Resources Development Bureau, 2020.
Google Scholar
43 Thrusfield M., Veterinary Epidemiology, 2018, John Wiley & Sons.
10.1002/9781118280249
Google Scholar
44 Dohoo I. R., Martin W., and Stryhn H. E., Veterinary Epidemiologic Research, 2003.
Google Scholar
45 Gwida M. M., El-Gohary A. H., Melzer F., Tomaso H., Rösler U., Wernery U., Wernery R., Elschner M. C., Khan I., Eickhoff M., Schöner D., and Neubauer H., Comparison of Diagnostic Tests for the Detection of Brucella Spp. In Camel Sera, BMC Research Notes. (2011) 4, 525–527, https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-525, 2-s2.0-82655186558.
10.1186/1756-0500-4-525
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
46 épizooties O. O. i. d., Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals: 2004: OIE. Office International des épizooties, 2004.
Google Scholar
47 Ahmed E. Y. S., Ali A., Mesfin A., Deressa A., and Girmaye T., Brucellosis as a Zoonosis in Chifra District, Afar Regional State, Ethiopia, Bulletin of Animal Health and Production in Africa. (2009) 56, no. 4, https://doi.org/10.4314/bahpa.v56i4.43310.
10.4314/bahpa.v56i4.43310
Google Scholar
48 Wakene W. Z. and Mamo G., Review on Epidemiology of Camel and Human Brucellosis in East Africa, Igad Member Countries, Science. (2017) 6, no. 6, 109–115.
Google Scholar
49 Edao B. M., Ameni G., Assefa Z., Berg S., Whatmore A. M., and Wood J. L., Brucellosis in Ruminants and Pastoralists in Borena, Southern Ethiopia, PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. (2020) 14, no. 7, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008461.
10.1371/journal.pntd.0008461
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
50 Wario W. and Sultan A. N., Camel Brucellosis in Ethiopia: Seroprevalence and Associated Risk Factor, Journal of Veterinary Healthcare. (2023) 3, no. 1, 14–30.
Google Scholar
51 Abbas B. and Agab H., A Review of Camel Brucellosis, Preventive Veterinary Medicine. (2002) 55, no. 1, 47–56, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-5877(02)00055-7, 2-s2.0-0037056968.
10.1016/S0167-5877(02)00055-7
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
52 Ahad A. A., Megersa B., and Edao B. M., Brucellosis in Camel, Small Ruminants, and Somali Pastoralists in Eastern Ethiopia: a One Health Approach, Frontiers in Veterinary Science. (2024) 11, https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1276275.
10.3389/fvets.2024.1276275
Google Scholar
53 Edao B. M., Brucellosis in Ethiopia: Epidemiology and Public Health Significance, 2021, University of Cambridge.
Google Scholar
54 Coelho A. C., Díez J. G., and Coelho A. M., Risk Factors for Brucella Spp. In Domestic and Wild Animals, 2015, Updates on brucellosis: IntechOpen, London, UK.
10.5772/61325
Google Scholar
55 Omer M., Skjerve E., Holstad G., Woldehiwet Z., and Macmillan A., Prevalence of Antibodies to Brucella Spp. In Cattle, Sheep, Goats, Horses and Camels in the State of Eritrea; Influence of Husbandry Systems, Epidemiology and Infection. (2000) 125, no. 2, 447–453, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0950268899004501, 2-s2.0-0033676237.
10.1017/S0950268899004501
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
56 Ntirandekura J.-B., Matemba L. E., Kimera S. I., Muma J. B., and Karimuribo E. D., Association of Brucellosis with Abortion Prevalence in Humans and Animals in Africa: A Review, African Journal of Reproductive Health. (2018) 22, no. 3, 120–136, https://doi.org/10.29063/ajrh2018/v22i3.13, 2-s2.0-85055780654.
10.29063/ajrh2018/v22i3.13
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
57 Admasu P., Seroprevalence of Camel Brucellosis in Yabello District of Borena Zone, Southern Ethiopia, Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Research. (2017) 4, no. 10.
Google Scholar
58 Poester F., Samartino L., and Santos R., Pathogenesis and Pathobiology of Brucellosis in Livestock, Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’OIE. (2013) 32, no. 1, 105–115, https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.32.1.2193, 2-s2.0-84879452491.
10.20506/rst.32.1.2193
CAS Google Scholar
59 Mohamud A. S., Kothowa J. P., Mfune R. L., Mubanga M., Godfroid J., and Muma J. B., Seroprevalence and Risk Factors Associated with Brucella Infection in Camels in the Puntland State of Somalia, Veterinary Sciences. (2021) 8, no. 7, https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci8070137.
10.3390/vetsci8070137
PubMed Google Scholar
60 Bayasgalan C., Chultemdorj T., Roth F. et al., Risk Factors of Brucellosis Seropositivity in Bactrian Camels of Mongolia, BMC Veterinary Research. (2018) 14, 342–411, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1664-0, 2-s2.0-85056546372.
10.1186/s12917-018-1664-0
PubMed Google Scholar
61 Meletis E., Sakhaee E., and Kostoulas P., Bayesian True Prevalence Estimation of Brucellosis in Sheep, Goats, Cattle and Camels in Southeast Regions of Iran, Zoonoses and Public Health. (2024) 71, no. 2, 170–177, https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.13095.
10.1111/zph.13095
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
62 Megersa B., Biffa D., Abunna F., Regassa A., Godfroid J., and Skjerve E., Seroprevalence of Brucellosis and its Contribution to Abortion in Cattle, Camel, and Goat Kept under Pastoral Management in Borana, Ethiopia, Tropical Animal Health and Production. (2011) 43, no. 3, 651–656, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-010-9748-2, 2-s2.0-79651470853.
10.1007/s11250-010-9748-2
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
63 Radwan A., Bekairi S., Mukayel A. et al., Control of Brucella Melitensis Infection in a Large Camel Herd in Saudi Arabia Using Antibiotherapy and Vaccination with Rev. 1 Vaccine, Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’OIE. (1995) 14, no. 3, 719–732, https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.14.3.860, 2-s2.0-0029367273.
10.20506/rst.14.3.860
CAS Google Scholar
64 Corbel M. J., Brucellosis in Humans and Animals, 2006, World Health Organization.
Google Scholar
65 Gwida M., El-Gohary A., Melzer F., Khan I., Rösler U., and Neubauer H., Brucellosis in Camels, Research in Veterinary Science. (2012) 92, no. 3, 351–355, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.05.002, 2-s2.0-84859104917.
10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.05.002
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
66 Pappas G., Papadimitriou P., Akritidis N., Christou L., and Tsianos E. V., The New Global Map of Human Brucellosis, The Lancet Infectious Diseases. (2006) 6, no. 2, 91–99, https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(06)70382-6, 2-s2.0-31344450203.
10.1016/s1473-3099(06)70382-6
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
67 Kang’ethe E. K., Arimi S., Omore A. O. et al., The Prevalence of Antibodies to Brucella Abortus in Marketed Milk in Kenya and its Public Health Implications, 2000.
Google Scholar
68 Swai E. S., Schoonman L., and Daborn C., Knowledge and Attitude towards Zoonoses Among Animal Health Workers and Livestock Keepers in Arusha and Tanga, Tanzania, Tanzania Journal of Health Research. (2010) 12, no. 4, 280–286, https://doi.org/10.4314/thrb.v12i4.54709.
10.4314/thrb.v12i4.54709
PubMed Google Scholar

All articles

Camel Brucellosis: Seroprevalence, Associated Risk Factor, and Public Health Perceptions in Arero District of Borena Zone, Southern Ethiopia

Abstract

1. Introduction