Loading…

Bovine Brucellosis in Gauteng, South Africa: Seroprevalence amongst Cattle Handlers and Variables Associated with Seropositive Cattle Herds, 2014-2016

In South Africa, the prevalence of cattle handler exposure to on cattle farms is unknown and risk factors and cattle symptoms associated with infected cattle herds are unavailable. To address this gap, a case-control study of cattle herds was conducted in Gauteng province and farm workers and veteri...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Pathogens (Basel) 2021-11, Vol.10 (12), p.1547
Main Authors: Govindasamy, Krpasha, Thompson, Peter N, Harris, Bernice N, Rossouw, Jennifer, Abernethy, Darrell A, Etter, Eric M C
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-e03bfd1cc4774a4c596f4552986785a61bdd86ae6733af27d5c077c816170d9a3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-e03bfd1cc4774a4c596f4552986785a61bdd86ae6733af27d5c077c816170d9a3
container_end_page
container_issue 12
container_start_page 1547
container_title Pathogens (Basel)
container_volume 10
creator Govindasamy, Krpasha
Thompson, Peter N
Harris, Bernice N
Rossouw, Jennifer
Abernethy, Darrell A
Etter, Eric M C
description In South Africa, the prevalence of cattle handler exposure to on cattle farms is unknown and risk factors and cattle symptoms associated with infected cattle herds are unavailable. To address this gap, a case-control study of cattle herds was conducted in Gauteng province and farm workers and veterinary officials were tested for exposure to . Seroprevalence amongst farm workers exposed to case herds ranged from 4.0% (BrucellaCapt ) to 16.7% (IgG ELISA ), compared to those exposed to control herds, where seroprevalence ranged from 1.9% (BrucellaCapt ) to 5.7% (IgG ELISA ). Seroprevalence amongst veterinary officials was significantly greater compared to farm workers exposed to case herds for the outcome RBT+ IgM- IgG+ (OR = 11.1, 95% CI: 2.5-49.9, = 0.002) and RBT- IgM- IgG+ (OR = 6.3, 95% CI: 2.3-17.3, < 0.001). Risk factors associated with being an infected herd were: being a government-sponsored farm vs. private farm (OR 4.0; 95% CI: 1.4-11.3; = 0.009), beef vs. dairy herd (OR 7.9; 95% CI: 1.4-44.9; = 0.020), open vs. closed herd (OR 3.3; 95% CI: 1.1-10.4; = 0.038) and the presence of antelope on the farm (OR 29.4; 95% CI: 4.0-218.2; = 0.001). Abortions (OR = 5.1; 95% CI: 2.0-13.3; < 0.001), weak calves in the herd (OR = 8.0; 95% CI: 2.6-24.4; < 0.001), reduction in number of calves born (OR = 9.0; 95% CI: 2.1-43.6; < 0.001), reduction in conception rate (OR = 3.9; 95% CI: 0.8-18.3; = 0.046), hygromas in cattle ( = 0.011) and farmers reporting brucellosis-like symptoms in their farm workers or in him/herself (OR = 3.4; 95% CI: 1.3-8.7; = 0.006) were more likely to be associated with infected herds than control herds. This evidence can be used in strategic planning to protect both human and herd health.
doi_str_mv 10.3390/pathogens10121547
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_4ad7b18cbeee4d388434d5bed2de58f4</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_4ad7b18cbeee4d388434d5bed2de58f4</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2612828821</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-e03bfd1cc4774a4c596f4552986785a61bdd86ae6733af27d5c077c816170d9a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplks9uEzEQxlcIRKvSB-CCLHFCaor_28sBKY1oUykShwJXy2vPJo4262B7U_EiPC-bpkQt-OAZj7_vN7I1VfWW4EvGavxxa8sqLqHPBBNKBFcvqlOKlZxgTdTLJ_lJdZ7zGo9L4_35dXXCeC1qgelp9fsq7kIP6CoNDrou5pBR6NGNHQr0ywt0F4eyQtM2BWc_oTtIcZtgZzvoHSC7if0yFzSzpXSA5rb3HaSMxoh-2BRs00FG05yjC7aAR_dhhD1AxkYl7OBoheTzBaKY8Mm4yTfVq9Z2Gc4f41n1_frLt9l8svh6czubLiZOUFUmgFnTeuIcV4pb7kQtWy4ErbVUWlhJGu-1tCAVY7alyguHlXKaSKKwry07q24PXB_t2mxT2Nj0y0QbzEMhpqWxqQTXgeHWq4Zo1wAA90xrzrgXDXjqQeiWj6zPB9Z2aDbgHfQl2e4Z9PlNH1ZmGXdGKywlZSPgwwGw-sc2ny7MvoaZwIwrtiOj9v1jsxR_DpCLWcch9eNfGSoJ1VRruleRg8qlmHOC9ogl2OynyPw3RaPn3dNnHB1_Z4b9AfhYxbo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2612828821</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Bovine Brucellosis in Gauteng, South Africa: Seroprevalence amongst Cattle Handlers and Variables Associated with Seropositive Cattle Herds, 2014-2016</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Govindasamy, Krpasha ; Thompson, Peter N ; Harris, Bernice N ; Rossouw, Jennifer ; Abernethy, Darrell A ; Etter, Eric M C</creator><creatorcontrib>Govindasamy, Krpasha ; Thompson, Peter N ; Harris, Bernice N ; Rossouw, Jennifer ; Abernethy, Darrell A ; Etter, Eric M C</creatorcontrib><description>In South Africa, the prevalence of cattle handler exposure to on cattle farms is unknown and risk factors and cattle symptoms associated with infected cattle herds are unavailable. To address this gap, a case-control study of cattle herds was conducted in Gauteng province and farm workers and veterinary officials were tested for exposure to . Seroprevalence amongst farm workers exposed to case herds ranged from 4.0% (BrucellaCapt ) to 16.7% (IgG ELISA ), compared to those exposed to control herds, where seroprevalence ranged from 1.9% (BrucellaCapt ) to 5.7% (IgG ELISA ). Seroprevalence amongst veterinary officials was significantly greater compared to farm workers exposed to case herds for the outcome RBT+ IgM- IgG+ (OR = 11.1, 95% CI: 2.5-49.9, = 0.002) and RBT- IgM- IgG+ (OR = 6.3, 95% CI: 2.3-17.3, &lt; 0.001). Risk factors associated with being an infected herd were: being a government-sponsored farm vs. private farm (OR 4.0; 95% CI: 1.4-11.3; = 0.009), beef vs. dairy herd (OR 7.9; 95% CI: 1.4-44.9; = 0.020), open vs. closed herd (OR 3.3; 95% CI: 1.1-10.4; = 0.038) and the presence of antelope on the farm (OR 29.4; 95% CI: 4.0-218.2; = 0.001). Abortions (OR = 5.1; 95% CI: 2.0-13.3; &lt; 0.001), weak calves in the herd (OR = 8.0; 95% CI: 2.6-24.4; &lt; 0.001), reduction in number of calves born (OR = 9.0; 95% CI: 2.1-43.6; &lt; 0.001), reduction in conception rate (OR = 3.9; 95% CI: 0.8-18.3; = 0.046), hygromas in cattle ( = 0.011) and farmers reporting brucellosis-like symptoms in their farm workers or in him/herself (OR = 3.4; 95% CI: 1.3-8.7; = 0.006) were more likely to be associated with infected herds than control herds. This evidence can be used in strategic planning to protect both human and herd health.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2076-0817</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2076-0817</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/pathogens10121547</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34959502</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Switzerland: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Abortion ; Agriculture ; Animal diseases ; Beef cattle ; Brucella ; BrucellaCapt ; Brucellosis ; Calves ; Cattle ; cattle handler ; Evolution ; Exposure ; Farms ; Farmworkers ; Handlers ; IgG ELISA ; Immunoglobulin G ; Immunoglobulin M ; Infections ; Life Sciences ; Livestock farming ; Occupational exposure ; Reduction ; Risk analysis ; Risk factors ; Serology ; seroprevalence ; veterinary official ; Zoonoses</subject><ispartof>Pathogens (Basel), 2021-11, Vol.10 (12), p.1547</ispartof><rights>2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Attribution</rights><rights>2021 by the authors. 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-e03bfd1cc4774a4c596f4552986785a61bdd86ae6733af27d5c077c816170d9a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-e03bfd1cc4774a4c596f4552986785a61bdd86ae6733af27d5c077c816170d9a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7391-1898 ; 0000-0002-5932-3029 ; 0000-0002-2268-9748 ; 0000-0002-6438-7828 ; 0000-0002-0924-3178</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2612828821/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2612828821?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,25731,27901,27902,36989,44566,53766,53768,74869</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34959502$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03503473$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Govindasamy, Krpasha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, Peter N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harris, Bernice N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rossouw, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abernethy, Darrell A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Etter, Eric M C</creatorcontrib><title>Bovine Brucellosis in Gauteng, South Africa: Seroprevalence amongst Cattle Handlers and Variables Associated with Seropositive Cattle Herds, 2014-2016</title><title>Pathogens (Basel)</title><addtitle>Pathogens</addtitle><description>In South Africa, the prevalence of cattle handler exposure to on cattle farms is unknown and risk factors and cattle symptoms associated with infected cattle herds are unavailable. To address this gap, a case-control study of cattle herds was conducted in Gauteng province and farm workers and veterinary officials were tested for exposure to . Seroprevalence amongst farm workers exposed to case herds ranged from 4.0% (BrucellaCapt ) to 16.7% (IgG ELISA ), compared to those exposed to control herds, where seroprevalence ranged from 1.9% (BrucellaCapt ) to 5.7% (IgG ELISA ). Seroprevalence amongst veterinary officials was significantly greater compared to farm workers exposed to case herds for the outcome RBT+ IgM- IgG+ (OR = 11.1, 95% CI: 2.5-49.9, = 0.002) and RBT- IgM- IgG+ (OR = 6.3, 95% CI: 2.3-17.3, &lt; 0.001). Risk factors associated with being an infected herd were: being a government-sponsored farm vs. private farm (OR 4.0; 95% CI: 1.4-11.3; = 0.009), beef vs. dairy herd (OR 7.9; 95% CI: 1.4-44.9; = 0.020), open vs. closed herd (OR 3.3; 95% CI: 1.1-10.4; = 0.038) and the presence of antelope on the farm (OR 29.4; 95% CI: 4.0-218.2; = 0.001). Abortions (OR = 5.1; 95% CI: 2.0-13.3; &lt; 0.001), weak calves in the herd (OR = 8.0; 95% CI: 2.6-24.4; &lt; 0.001), reduction in number of calves born (OR = 9.0; 95% CI: 2.1-43.6; &lt; 0.001), reduction in conception rate (OR = 3.9; 95% CI: 0.8-18.3; = 0.046), hygromas in cattle ( = 0.011) and farmers reporting brucellosis-like symptoms in their farm workers or in him/herself (OR = 3.4; 95% CI: 1.3-8.7; = 0.006) were more likely to be associated with infected herds than control herds. This evidence can be used in strategic planning to protect both human and herd health.</description><subject>Abortion</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Animal diseases</subject><subject>Beef cattle</subject><subject>Brucella</subject><subject>BrucellaCapt</subject><subject>Brucellosis</subject><subject>Calves</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>cattle handler</subject><subject>Evolution</subject><subject>Exposure</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Farmworkers</subject><subject>Handlers</subject><subject>IgG ELISA</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin G</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin M</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Livestock farming</subject><subject>Occupational exposure</subject><subject>Reduction</subject><subject>Risk analysis</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Serology</subject><subject>seroprevalence</subject><subject>veterinary official</subject><subject>Zoonoses</subject><issn>2076-0817</issn><issn>2076-0817</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNplks9uEzEQxlcIRKvSB-CCLHFCaor_28sBKY1oUykShwJXy2vPJo4262B7U_EiPC-bpkQt-OAZj7_vN7I1VfWW4EvGavxxa8sqLqHPBBNKBFcvqlOKlZxgTdTLJ_lJdZ7zGo9L4_35dXXCeC1qgelp9fsq7kIP6CoNDrou5pBR6NGNHQr0ywt0F4eyQtM2BWc_oTtIcZtgZzvoHSC7if0yFzSzpXSA5rb3HaSMxoh-2BRs00FG05yjC7aAR_dhhD1AxkYl7OBoheTzBaKY8Mm4yTfVq9Z2Gc4f41n1_frLt9l8svh6czubLiZOUFUmgFnTeuIcV4pb7kQtWy4ErbVUWlhJGu-1tCAVY7alyguHlXKaSKKwry07q24PXB_t2mxT2Nj0y0QbzEMhpqWxqQTXgeHWq4Zo1wAA90xrzrgXDXjqQeiWj6zPB9Z2aDbgHfQl2e4Z9PlNH1ZmGXdGKywlZSPgwwGw-sc2ny7MvoaZwIwrtiOj9v1jsxR_DpCLWcch9eNfGSoJ1VRruleRg8qlmHOC9ogl2OynyPw3RaPn3dNnHB1_Z4b9AfhYxbo</recordid><startdate>20211126</startdate><enddate>20211126</enddate><creator>Govindasamy, Krpasha</creator><creator>Thompson, Peter N</creator><creator>Harris, Bernice N</creator><creator>Rossouw, Jennifer</creator><creator>Abernethy, Darrell A</creator><creator>Etter, Eric M C</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><general>MDPI</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>VOOES</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7391-1898</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5932-3029</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2268-9748</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6438-7828</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0924-3178</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211126</creationdate><title>Bovine Brucellosis in Gauteng, South Africa: Seroprevalence amongst Cattle Handlers and Variables Associated with Seropositive Cattle Herds, 2014-2016</title><author>Govindasamy, Krpasha ; Thompson, Peter N ; Harris, Bernice N ; Rossouw, Jennifer ; Abernethy, Darrell A ; Etter, Eric M C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-e03bfd1cc4774a4c596f4552986785a61bdd86ae6733af27d5c077c816170d9a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Abortion</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Animal diseases</topic><topic>Beef cattle</topic><topic>Brucella</topic><topic>BrucellaCapt</topic><topic>Brucellosis</topic><topic>Calves</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>cattle handler</topic><topic>Evolution</topic><topic>Exposure</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Farmworkers</topic><topic>Handlers</topic><topic>IgG ELISA</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin G</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin M</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Livestock farming</topic><topic>Occupational exposure</topic><topic>Reduction</topic><topic>Risk analysis</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Serology</topic><topic>seroprevalence</topic><topic>veterinary official</topic><topic>Zoonoses</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Govindasamy, Krpasha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, Peter N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harris, Bernice N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rossouw, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abernethy, Darrell A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Etter, Eric M C</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) (Open Access)</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Pathogens (Basel)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Govindasamy, Krpasha</au><au>Thompson, Peter N</au><au>Harris, Bernice N</au><au>Rossouw, Jennifer</au><au>Abernethy, Darrell A</au><au>Etter, Eric M C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Bovine Brucellosis in Gauteng, South Africa: Seroprevalence amongst Cattle Handlers and Variables Associated with Seropositive Cattle Herds, 2014-2016</atitle><jtitle>Pathogens (Basel)</jtitle><addtitle>Pathogens</addtitle><date>2021-11-26</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1547</spage><pages>1547-</pages><issn>2076-0817</issn><eissn>2076-0817</eissn><abstract>In South Africa, the prevalence of cattle handler exposure to on cattle farms is unknown and risk factors and cattle symptoms associated with infected cattle herds are unavailable. To address this gap, a case-control study of cattle herds was conducted in Gauteng province and farm workers and veterinary officials were tested for exposure to . Seroprevalence amongst farm workers exposed to case herds ranged from 4.0% (BrucellaCapt ) to 16.7% (IgG ELISA ), compared to those exposed to control herds, where seroprevalence ranged from 1.9% (BrucellaCapt ) to 5.7% (IgG ELISA ). Seroprevalence amongst veterinary officials was significantly greater compared to farm workers exposed to case herds for the outcome RBT+ IgM- IgG+ (OR = 11.1, 95% CI: 2.5-49.9, = 0.002) and RBT- IgM- IgG+ (OR = 6.3, 95% CI: 2.3-17.3, &lt; 0.001). Risk factors associated with being an infected herd were: being a government-sponsored farm vs. private farm (OR 4.0; 95% CI: 1.4-11.3; = 0.009), beef vs. dairy herd (OR 7.9; 95% CI: 1.4-44.9; = 0.020), open vs. closed herd (OR 3.3; 95% CI: 1.1-10.4; = 0.038) and the presence of antelope on the farm (OR 29.4; 95% CI: 4.0-218.2; = 0.001). Abortions (OR = 5.1; 95% CI: 2.0-13.3; &lt; 0.001), weak calves in the herd (OR = 8.0; 95% CI: 2.6-24.4; &lt; 0.001), reduction in number of calves born (OR = 9.0; 95% CI: 2.1-43.6; &lt; 0.001), reduction in conception rate (OR = 3.9; 95% CI: 0.8-18.3; = 0.046), hygromas in cattle ( = 0.011) and farmers reporting brucellosis-like symptoms in their farm workers or in him/herself (OR = 3.4; 95% CI: 1.3-8.7; = 0.006) were more likely to be associated with infected herds than control herds. This evidence can be used in strategic planning to protect both human and herd health.</abstract><cop>Switzerland</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><pmid>34959502</pmid><doi>10.3390/pathogens10121547</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7391-1898</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5932-3029</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2268-9748</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6438-7828</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0924-3178</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2076-0817
ispartof Pathogens (Basel), 2021-11, Vol.10 (12), p.1547
issn 2076-0817
2076-0817
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_4ad7b18cbeee4d388434d5bed2de58f4
source Publicly Available Content Database; PubMed Central
subjects Abortion
Agriculture
Animal diseases
Beef cattle
Brucella
BrucellaCapt
Brucellosis
Calves
Cattle
cattle handler
Evolution
Exposure
Farms
Farmworkers
Handlers
IgG ELISA
Immunoglobulin G
Immunoglobulin M
Infections
Life Sciences
Livestock farming
Occupational exposure
Reduction
Risk analysis
Risk factors
Serology
seroprevalence
veterinary official
Zoonoses
title Bovine Brucellosis in Gauteng, South Africa: Seroprevalence amongst Cattle Handlers and Variables Associated with Seropositive Cattle Herds, 2014-2016
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T22%3A45%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bovine%20Brucellosis%20in%20Gauteng,%20South%20Africa:%20Seroprevalence%20amongst%20Cattle%20Handlers%20and%20Variables%20Associated%20with%20Seropositive%20Cattle%20Herds,%202014-2016&rft.jtitle=Pathogens%20(Basel)&rft.au=Govindasamy,%20Krpasha&rft.date=2021-11-26&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1547&rft.pages=1547-&rft.issn=2076-0817&rft.eissn=2076-0817&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/pathogens10121547&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2612828821%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-e03bfd1cc4774a4c596f4552986785a61bdd86ae6733af27d5c077c816170d9a3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2612828821&rft_id=info:pmid/34959502&rfr_iscdi=true