Zoonotic Disease: Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Dairy Farm Owner in Wolaita Sodo District, Ethiopia

Getachew Derbew Belay^1*, Amare Bihon Asfaw², Hagazi Fantay Tadesse³ and Asma Seid^1
*Correspondence: Getachew Derbew Belay, College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Samara University, Samara, Ethiopia, Tel: +251921815756, Email:

Keywords

Attitude • Dairy farm • Knowledge • Practice • Sodo • Zoonoses

Introduction

Livestock production is important in Ethiopia’s agricultural economy. It is contributing a great role in the livelihood of the rural community, particularly; dairy cattle production has a paramount role in Ethiopia economy where livestock and its products are important source of food and income generation. The sector contributed up to 40% of agricultural Gross Domestic Product (GDP), nearly 20% of total GDP, and 20% of national foreign exchange earnings in 2017. Nevertheless, livestock production can also be a source of infection for humans, through direct contact with animals or unsafe using of their product [1], and become a source of zoonotic pathogens.

Zoonotic disease is an infectious disease that has great public health concern and transmitted from animals to humans or from humans to vertebrate animals. It can be transmitted to humans directly or indirectly from animals, either by the consumption of contaminated food and water, exposure to the pathogen during preparation, processing or by direct contact with infected animals or humans. According to world economic forum reports in 2022, it represent a growing threat to public health and about 60% of known infectious diseases and up to 75% of new or emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic in origin [2]. Zoonoses are categorized based on their disease causing agents as bacterial, viral, parasitic, mycotic/fungal zoonosis, their reservoir hosts either animal or human, or the life cycle of disease causing agents.

Developing countries including Ethiopia have a higher incidence and prevalence of zoonoses, and this is attributed to the lack of adequate control mechanism, inadequate infrastructure and lack of adequate information on their significance and distribution. In Ethiopia, 80% of households have direct relations with domestic animals, which favor an opportunity for infection and spread of disease and also rank very high in the health burden of zoonotic diseases due to having a large population of poor livestock keepers. Increased human-animal contact or interaction resulting from changes in human and animal behavior, pathogen adaptability, change in farm practices, livestock production systems and food safety are among the triggering factors for emergence of zoonotic diseases [3].

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) research is widely used in public health and conservation scholarship to collect information about public understanding of a phenomenon (knowledge), evaluative responses to a situation (attitudes), and observed actions or behaviors (practices) among a target population. Zoonotic disease is a great public health concern and a direct human health hazard that may even lead to death and have caused an estimated 2.4 billion cases of illness and 2.7 million deaths in humans per year in addition to their negative effect on human health and most of it affect animal health and decrease livestock production.

These impacts of zoonotic disease are also common in Ethiopia as general and in the study area in particular. The prevention and control of zoonotic diseases include an understanding of the factors affecting the probability that zoonoses will emerge, and the likely pattern of their spread reducing risky human-animal interactions, improving the welfare of domestic and wild animals, and refining global surveillance systems for people and animals. Currently, there is inadequate data on the knowledge, attitude and practice of Wolaita sodo community towards zoonotic diseases. So, to overcome the problem and know the knowledge, attitude and hygienic practice of zoonotic disease in the area, the current study needed to conduct and to address the problems regarding zoonotic diseases. Therefore, the objectives of this study were: to assess the knowledge and attitude of community regarding with zoonotic disease in dairy farm in and around sodo town and to evaluate the community practice related with zoonotic disease in dairy farm in and around sodo town.

Materials and Methods

Study area

The present survey carried out from March, 2022 to August, 2022 in and around Sodo town in the Wolaita Zone (Figures 1 and 2). The study site is located 390 km south of Addis Ababa and is found at 6°54′N latitude and 37°45′E longitude with an elevation between 1650 and 2980 meters above sea level. The district is bounded by the Damot Gale district to the north, Humbo district to the south, Damote Woyde district to the east and Damote Sore district to the west; the annual rainfall and temperature of the area are 1000-1200 mm and 26-35 ℃, respectively. The site is classified under a mid altitude (“Woyina dega” in the local Amharic language) agroecological environment. The dry season lasts from September to February, and the rainy season remains from March to August. The livestock population of the region was estimated to be 1,097,710 cattle, 150,383 sheep, 185,250 goats, 60,055 equines, and 734,924 poultry.

Study population, design and sampling technique

The study population was the farmers belonging to woliata sodo town. The target population comprised of dairy farm owners residing in and around sodo town. Cross-sectional questionnaire-based study design and random sampling technique were employed to select households for this study. A list of households owning dairy farms was obtained from Sodo town agricultural office, livestock and fishery sector. A random sampling technique were used to select the households for the purpose of this study and a random survey of 123 urban and per-urban dairy farmers who are actively involved in dairy production were conducted.

Sample size determination

The sample size for collecting the questionnaire data were determined by using formula as indicated by Bonnet and Arifin [4]. The required sample size was calculated using an expected Cronbach’s α of 0.7 with a significance level = 0.05; confidence interval of 95%; 17 response items (for knowledge subscale); and an expected dropout rate (incomplete information rate) of 20%. A total of 123 dairy farmers were used during the survey.

Data collection method

Dairy farmers were visited and the questionnaires are administered to randomly selected sample of the population in the study area. A close-ended questionnaire were developed and pre-tested to assess knowledge, attitudes and practice towards zoonotic disease, a questionnaire was developed to measure participants’ knowledge about zoonotic disease, attitudes related to zoonotic disease risk, and practices used to prevent zoonotic diseases risks from livestock products and birth products. The demographic and farm characteristics questionnaire included information on gender, age, education, primary livelihood activity, respondent’s role, residential area, farm size, farm type and others.

Data analysis

All the collected data are coded and entered into micro soft excel. The questionnaires were checked for completeness before entering the data in to SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 20.0 statistical software (released 2011). Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, distribution and percentages are used to summarize the data. The association of demographic characteristics of the respondents and knowledge, attitude and practice were analyzed using general linear models. A knowledge, attitude and practice were prepared adding up farmer’s regarding specific questions and sub-questions. A score 1.0 was awarded if the participant could choose the correct, agree and successful answers and no score granted for an incorrect, disagree and failure replies. The internal consistency of the subscales was assessed by Cronbach’s α coefficient, where a Cronbach’s α ≥0.7 was considered as acceptable. A value of Cronbach’s α > 0.8 was an indicator of good reliability and Cronbach’s α between 0.7 and 0.8 indicated adequate reliability. Subscales with Cronbach’s α value below 0.5 indicated unacceptable internal consistencies. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to measure the relationship between subscales. Coefficient values between 0.8 and 1.0 indicated a very strong relationship, 0.6 to 0.8 indicated a strong relationship, 0.4 to 0.6 a moderate relationship, 0.2 to 0.4 weak relationships and a value between 0 and 0.2 indicated very weak to no relationship.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics

A total of 123 dairy farmers were interviewed; study participants were in different characteristics. More than half of the participants were farm owners (65.85%) and women (58.54%). Detail information on the characteristics of respondents is stated in Table 1.

Knowledge on zoonotic diseases

Out of the 123 respondents, 114(92.68%) know about zoonotic disease and 29.27% of the participants do have training about zoonotic disease. The detailed information used in the building of knowledge score is mentioned in Table 2.

Attitude and practices on zoonotic disease

Among the respondents, 73.13% of the respondents understood that assisting animals during delivery and collecting aborted fetuses and placenta with bare hand exposes to disease risks; however, only 17.07% of them wear protective hand gloves in assisting animal delivery. Detail information and questions involved in the construction of attitude and practice scores are showed in Table 3.

Internal consistency

Cronbach’s α was calculated for subscale. The knowledge and attitude subscales had good internal consistency reliability with Cronbach’s α of 0.711 and 0.756, respectively. The practice subscale had a Cronbach’s α of 0.255 and thus lowers than the minimum acceptable value of 0.7, indicating that this subscale showed inadequate internal consistency reliability. The overall Cronbach (knowledge, attitude, practice sections) was estimated at 0.831.

Uni-variable analysis

Sex, primary livelihood activity and educational status are associated with the zoonotic knowledge score (p<0.05). The detailed results of univariable analyses are displayed in Table 4.

Multivariable analysis

The education level (p<0.05), which was positively associated with the zoonotic disease knowledge score, attitude and practice scores and age of farmer (p<0.05), which was negatively associated, were the significant parameters. The detailed results of multivariable analysis are presented in Table 5.

Correlation between knowledge, attitude and practice

Through correlation analysis, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) indicated that there was a moderate positive association between responding correctly in the knowledge section and having the desired attitude (r2 = 0.644, p = 0.000). There was a positive but weak relationship between correctly responding in the knowledge section and self-reported good practice (r2=0.207, p=0.021). Good practices were also positively associated with the desired attitude (r2 = 0.329, p=0.000).

Discussion

General KAP of study participants toward zoonotic disease

Dairy livestock keepers play an important role in the economy of any country, especially developing country like Ethiopia. The economical contribution is not only by generating income to the owners but also by providing employment to rural and peri-urban community. In this study, the first attempt in sodo was assessing the knowledge, attitude, and practices of dairy farm practitioners towards zoonotic diseases. More than half of the participants have sufficient knowledge (65.34%), positive attitude (73.90%) and positive practice (59.36%) towards the transmission, control and prevention of zoonotic diseases. This result indicates that, despite of an overall good knowledge, attitude and practice score about zoonotic diseases, there are some serious knowledge and awareness shortcomings.

Almost all (92.68%) of the respondents knew about zoonotic disease so they can be considered as highly knowledgeable about zoonosis. Majority of the respondents know the transmission of disease from animals to humans by drinking raw milk, eating uncooked meat, assisting animals during parturition and collecting aborted fetuses or placenta with bare hand. The percentage of participants who knew drinking of raw milk is a source of infection was 85.37%. This figure is higher than 41.5% and lower than 99.6% but it is comparable 87.5% [5-7]. In the present study, 90.24% of them knew that eating uncooked meat is source of infection. In this regard, respondents seem to have a good deal of knowledge concerning the source of disease when eating raw meat. Raw meat consumption has been applied for generations in many social groups located in Russia, Cuba and Africa.

Participants who knew that assisting animals during parturition and collecting aborted fetuses or placenta with bare hand as source of infection were 82.93% and 80.49%, respectively. It is much higher than that of Seyoum, where 15.6% mentioned assisting with cow birth could be source of infection. Majority of participants believed that zoonotic diseases can be controlled (80.49%) and prevented (81.30%) and treated (78.05%) which is much higher than that of Khadayata and Aggarwal, where 33% had knowledge where zoonotic disease can be prevented by maintaining proper hygiene. The indicated prevention methods are using cooked meat, boiling milk, vaccination, separating animals’ house. The participants that agree risk of acquiring disease through consumption of raw meat and milk were 73.98%.

This result is much higher than that of Seoum, where 21.3% of respondents said raw milk is not more healthy and nutritious than pasteurized or boiled. Acceptable level of attitude was obtained regarding the possibility of contracting zoonotic diseases from only sick animals (56.90%). That means 42.10% believed that disease can be acquired from apparently healthy animals much higher than that of Seyoum, who reported 18.7%. Consumption of meat (90.24%) is the prime way for zoonosis and milk (85.37%). Babu has been reported that 22.46% and 14.10% respondents were conscious on consumption of meat and milk, respectively causes zoonotic infection. Whereas most livestock keepers are aware of the risk involved through the consumption of animal products, such as milk and meat, as well as direct transmission, for example by aerosols or direct contact. This good level of awareness is help them likely to prevent them from an increased risk of contracting zoonoses, as they are likely to take proper precautions or use protective clothing when dealing with abortions or calves with diarrhea and during on-farm activities like milking, cleaning the cowshed or slaughtering cattle. Although livestock keepers might be aware of the risk of consuming raw milk or meat the habit of consuming raw milk, raw blood or raw or undercooked meat is, however, still common practice, especially among rural communities [8].

Despite majority of the participants have sufficient knowledge (65.34%) and positive attitude (73.90%) and positive practice (59.34%) in relation to transmission, control and prevention of zoonotic diseases. However, 41.64% of them could not reflect their knowledge attitude towards real practices. The current study is higher than 32% positive practice done by Cakmur. The most important findings are identification of several high-risk practices absence of protective equipment while assisting an animal’s parturition and handling birth, eating raw meat, drinking raw milk and leaving in common with animals material, being universal among the participants. Respondents were highly knowledgeable and approach concerning the potential health risk of animal zoonosis. Unfortunately such level of knowledge attitude was not reflected in the real practice where 41.36% do negative practice such drinking raw milk, eating raw meat, assisting animal parturition and collecting aborted materials with bare hand. In this study, nearly 61% of dairy farmers mentioned that they consumed milk after boiling; however, 39% of them drink raw milk which is consistent Seyoum, who reported 47% practice drinking of raw milk. Similarly 39% of the respondents have the habit of eating raw meat which is much higher than 12% of cattle farmers consume raw meat.

Production of animal products, contamination during this production, wrong feeding habits and lack of knowledge can be effective in the transmission of zoonotic diseases [9]. Raw meat consumption creates dangerous situations in terms of public health due to parasite diseases originated from food as well as bacterial diseases.

One of the most important findings is the identification of several highrisk practices, with negligence of protective equipment while assisting an animal’s parturition and handling aborted material, being universal among the participants. Only 17% all of the participants use protected glove while assisting cow birth. Similar to this study, worker in Jordan also reported that only 6% of cattle owners wear protective cloths and gloves while dealing with cow birth. This low level of awareness may lead to risk-practice which most likely exposes them to an increased risk of contracting zoonotic disease such as brucellosis, as they are unlikely to take proper precautions or use protective clothing when dealing with animal birth and abortions. There were differences between the positive knowledge level, attitude and practices of cattle farmers regarding zoonotic diseases and their sex, age, educational level, respondent’s role, resident farm type and farm size. Similar reports were done by different researchers across the world. The age and education level has been associated with better zoonotic disease knowledge and practices.

There was a significant difference between and education levels towards and knowledge, attitude, and practices of zoonotic diseases (P<0.05). It was confirmed that especially the ones who had high school and college education had a knowledge level distinctly higher and their attitude and practices, except for those who were not illiterate, were closely related to each other. In the same manner, studies conducted in Tajikistan, Senegal, Nepal, and India reported that livestock farmers with low education level had a low level of knowledge, attitude, and practices toward protection from zoonotic diseases [10-12]. In addition to this, the increase in age correlates with good knowledge about zoonosis. These findings can be attributed to the improvement of education system across the years, the acquaintance of the new generation with technological developments and the introduction of training courses for the education of new farmers in this field.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This study gives an understanding on the variability of knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to zoonotic disease risk among dairy farm communities in Sodo. Generally, an overall good score were observed in knowledge, attitude and practice sub scores. However, the observed low level of attitude obtained regarding the possibility of contracting zoonotic diseases from apparently healthy animals; low level of practices in drinking boiled milk and eating cocked meat need urgent intervention. The finding of this study suggested that establishing a desired attitude on impact of those diseases on public health and their mitigation strategies among the community is vital to reduce the transmission of zoonotic agents from animals to humans. Therefore awareness should be created about the importance of zoonosis with respect to KAP among livestock keepers by Information Education Communication, Community awareness should be included to educate how harmful consumption of raw or unpasteurized milk and uncooked meat and bare hand assistance during parturition and handling of aborted materials, Age and education of the farmer must be in the core of any program oriented towards the improvement of the zoonotic disease KAPs, Role of the farmer and location of the farm determine awareness, disease identification skills, and preventive behavioural practices, thus it need attention during community health education program development and Awareness should be done to address the above practice gaps to reduce the risk of zoonotic infection to livestock producers and livestock products consumer.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Klous, Gijs, Anke Huss, Dick JJ Heederik and Roel A. Coutinho. "Human–livestock contacts and their relationship to transmission of zoonotic pathogens, a systematic review of literature." One Health 2 (2016): 65-76.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/zoonotic-disease-virus-covid/
3. Lindahl, Johanna F. and Delia Grace. "The consequences of human actions on risks for infectious diseases: A review." Infect Ecol Epidemiol 5 (2015): 30048.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Arifin, Wan Nor. "A web-based sample size calculator for reliability studies." Edu Med J 10 (2018).

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Mosalagae, Diphetogo, Davies Mubika Pfukenyi and Gift Matope. "Milk producers’ awareness of milk-borne zoonoses in selected smallholder and commercial dairy farms of Zimbabwe." Trop Anim Health Prod 43 (2011): 733-739.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. Seyoum, E. T., T. K. Mekonen, Negatu Kebede and H. A. Gezahegn, et al. "Knowledge, attitude and practice among small scale dairy farmers on MilkBorne zoonotic diseases, north Showa zone, Ethiopia." J Foodborne Zoonotic Dis 4 (2016): 19-28.

   Google Scholar, Indexed at

7. Musallam, Imadidden I., Mahmoud N. Abo-Shehada and Javier Guitian. "Knowledge, attitudes, and practices associated with brucellosis in livestock owners in Jordan." Am J Trop Med Hyg 93 (2015): 1148.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

8. Shirima, G. M., R. R. Kazwala and D. M. Kambarage. "Prevalence of bovine tuberculosis in cattle in different farming systems in the eastern zone of Tanzania." Prev Vet Med 57 (2003): 167-172.

   Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Rajkumar, K., A. Bhattacharya, S. David and S. Hari Balaji, et al. "Socio-demographic study on extent of knowledge, awareness, attitude, and risks of zoonotic diseases among livestock owners in Puducherry region." Vet World 9 (2016): 1018.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

10. Lindahl, Elisabeth, Nosirjon Sattorov, Sofia Boqvist and Ulf Magnusson. "A study of knowledge, attitudes and practices relating to brucellosis among small-scale dairy farmers in an urban and peri-urban area of Tajikistan." PloS One 10 (2015): e0117318.

    Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

11. Kelly, Terra R., David A. Bunn, Nanda P. Joshi and Daniel Grooms, et al. "Awareness and practices relating to zoonotic diseases among smallholder farmers in Nepal." Eco Health 15 (2018): 656-669.

    Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

12. Bhattacharyya, Sayan. "A socio-demographic study on extent of knowledge, awareness, attitude and risks of zoonotic diseases among livestock owners in Singur, West Bengal. E." Afr Sch J Med Sci 2 (2019).

    Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at