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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Pathogens (Basel) 2021-11, Vol.10 (12), p.1547 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
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,
< 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.</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,
< 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.</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,
< 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.</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 |