Content uploaded by Ahmed Kadle
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ahmed Kadle on Sep 27, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
2925
ISSN 2286-4822
www.euacademic.org
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH
Vol. V, Issue 6/ September 2017
Impact Factor: 3.4546 (UIF)
DRJI Value: 5.9 (B+)
Sero-epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in
Somalia
AHMED A. H. KADLE
1
International Committee of the Red Cross
Mogadishu, Somalia
SHADIA A. MOHAMED
College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Bahri
Khartoum, Sudan
ABDALLA M. IBRAHIM
Abrar Research and Training Centre, Abrar University
Mogadishu, Somalia
MIHAD F. ALAWAD
Central Veterinary Research Laboratories
Khartoum, Sudan
Abstract:
Brucellosis is one of the most important zoonotic diseases
worldwide. The disease was not fully assessed in Somalia particularly
after the civil war of 1990s. The present study was conducted from
December, 2015 to March, 2016 in order to determine the
seroprevalence and possible risk factors associated with camel
brucellosis in Mogadishu city of Somalia. Questionnaire survey was
also used to evaluate the knowledge-attitude-practice (KAP) among
camel owners. A total of 180 camel sera were randomly sampled and
tested using Rose Bengal Plate Test (RBPT), Modified RBPT
(mRBPT), Serum Agglutination Test (SAT) and Competitive Enzyme
Linked Immunosorbent Assay (cELISA). The investigated camels were
apparently healthy above two years of age with no history of
vaccination against brucellosis. The overall seroprevalence of camel
brucellosis was 4.4% at individual level and 31.3% at herd level. The
1
Corresponding author: kadle010@gmail.com
Ahmed A. H. Kadle, Shadia A. Mohamed, Abdalla M. Ibrahim, Mihad F. Alawad- Sero-
epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in Somalia
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. V, Issue 6 / September 2017
2926
Kappa statistics indicated that there was perfect agreement between
mRBPT, SAT and cELISA (k=0.841) while the RBPT has a Kappa
value of (0.589) which was found to be a moderate level of agreement
when compared to the cELISA. Questionnaire survey among the camel
owners determined that camels with proved reproductive problems
were culled by 77% of the respondents which is a good practice that
might have contributed to the low prevalence of brucellosis in the
present study. Conversely, 100% of the respondents confirmed of
consuming raw milk of camel as well as bare hand contact of abortion
materials with abortion cases reported by 63% of them. Furthermore,
77% of the respondents did not know brucellosis and its zoonotic risk.
Thus, these factors can play a vital role of transmission of this disease
among Somali people. It was concluded that Brucella infection exists
in camels in Mogadishu, Somalia, and mRBPT is as sensitive as SAT
and cELISA techniques. Moreover RBPT is very sensitive test
validated and its antigen standardized for bovine brucellosis.
Therefore, the study recommends a wider epidemiological surveillance
and further validation of diagnostic serological tests in camels and
other ruminants as well as human with isolation and identification of
the infective Brucella organism strains and further biovars which
enables best options for selection of brucellosis control strategy suitable
to Somalia context. Hence, improvement of the public awareness on
zoonotic potential of the disease is also recommended.
Key words: Brucella, Seroprevalence, Risk factors, zoonotic, disease
control, Mogadishu, Somalia.
INTRODUCTION
Somalia takes the first place in the world in possessing over six
million one humped camels [1]. The dromedary is an important
livestock species in Somalia and plays a vital role as food and in
the national economy of the country [2]. They have also social
and cultural importance to the pastoralists of the country for
payment of bride-wealth, known as ‘‘yarad’’ in Somali and
compensation of injured parties in tribal feuds, known as
Ahmed A. H. Kadle, Shadia A. Mohamed, Abdalla M. Ibrahim, Mihad F. Alawad- Sero-
epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in Somalia
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. V, Issue 6 / September 2017
2927
‘‘mag’’ in Somali; blood-money [3]. The camel in Somali
pastoralist is the most valuable animal for all and a large herd
is a sign of strength, power and prestige. Camels are not
primarily disposable income as they have a great potential for
survival in long periods of drought as a recurrent phenomenon
in the country [4]. The available data on Somali livestock
population are poor and quite old. According to FSAU-FAO data
(1999), the camel population of Southern zone (including
Banadir region) is about 1.2 million heads [1].
Brucellosis is a worldwide zoonotic disease affecting both
human and animals including camels. It causes heavy economic
losses to the livestock industry and also poses serious human
health hazards [5]. The Brucella infection in camels is caused
by different biotypes of B. abortus and B. melitensis [5, 6, 7, 8].
It is characterized by abortion, retained placenta, uterine
infection, foetal death, mummification and delayed maturity [5,
9]. Infertility, arthritis and hygroma were also reported [10].
The infection rate was higher in intensive camel production
system [10, 11]. In countries with more of extensive form of
husbandry like Somalia the prevalence rate is low [9, 11, 12,
13].Previous serological surveys in different camel rearing
areas of Somalia reported prevalence rates ranging from 0.3%
to 10.4%using different serological techniques [14, 15, 16].
In Somalia, despite the presence of the largest
population of camels in the world and its economic and social
importance to the pastoral and agropastoral Somali
communities [1, 2, 3], livestock management as well as
programmes to control infectious diseases like brucellosis have
declined after collapse of central veterinary services in the
country due to the civil war of 1990s. Therefore, the present
study was undertaken to determine the seroprevalence of camel
brucellosis in selected districts of Banadir region of Somalia.
Moreover, scarcity of camel brucellosis data, lack of awareness
about brucellosis among the community together with the
Ahmed A. H. Kadle, Shadia A. Mohamed, Abdalla M. Ibrahim, Mihad F. Alawad- Sero-
epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in Somalia
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. V, Issue 6 / September 2017
2928
prevailing tradition of raw camel milk consumption are the
main encouraging points to the present study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area:
The study was carried out in three districts of Banadir region of
Somalia namely, Daynile, Yaqshid and Kahda districts. The
region lies between latitude 2°2′59″N and longitude 45°15′44″E.
Although by far the smallest administrative region in Somalia,
it has the largest population estimated to be about 2.3 million
and covers an area approximately 96,878 km [17, 18]. There is
no information on Banadir camel population in particular.
Therefore, these three districts were selected purposively due to
their camel population. Samples were collected randomly from
the nomadic herds and the dairy camel farms.
Study Population:
A total of 180 apparently healthy one-humped camels above two
years old with no history of vaccination against brucellosis were
randomly sampled from 16 camel herds. Two different camel
production systems were tested in this study, including
nomadic (extensive system) and dairy camel farms (semi-
intensive system). These animals were sampled in the period
between December 2015 and March 2016. Details of the study
population from the selected districts screened for brucellosis
are summarized in table (1).
Study design:
A cross-sectional study was carried out to investigate the
seroprevalence of camel brucellosis in the selected districts of
Banadir region of Somalia using four different serological tests
varies in their sensitivity and specificity. Livestock farmers of
the selected areas were informed about the survey. However, to
encourage their participation in this study and facilitate the
Ahmed A. H. Kadle, Shadia A. Mohamed, Abdalla M. Ibrahim, Mihad F. Alawad- Sero-
epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in Somalia
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. V, Issue 6 / September 2017
2929
process of sampling, the author administered anthelmintic and
multivitamin injections to their animals during sampling
period. At the time blood samples were collected, questionnaires
were filled by the owner of each sampled herd.
Sample collection:
Blood Samples: Approximately, 8 ml of blood were collected
aseptically from jugular vein of each camel using plain
vaccutainers tubes. The samples were transported to the
laboratory of Abrar Research and Training Centre (ARTC) in
Abrar University, Mogadishu-Somalia. Samples were left to clot
at room temperature (25°C). Sera were separated and decanted
into eppendorf tubes in duplicate (four aliquots) and stored at –
20°C until needed for serological examination.
Questionnaire Samples: A questionnaire survey was
conducted among camel keepers to assess the knowledge-
attitude-practice (KAP) among these herders and farmers
towards the brucellosis. The questionnaire was administered to
sixteen respondents (herders) whose camels were included in
the study population. The information gathered relates to camel
management (milking, herding, watering, feeding, and delivery
and mating assistance) and milk consumption habits, in
addition to their knowledge on brucellosis and its control.
Serological Techniques:
Four serological tests (RBPT, mRBPT, SAT & cELISA) were
used in this study for detection of Brucella infection in Camels.
The RBPT and mRBPT were done in the laboratory of Abrar
Research and Training Centre (ARTC), Abrar University,
Mogadishu-Somalia, whereas SAT and cELISA were performed
in Central Veterinary Research Laboratory (CVRL), Khartoum-
Sudan.
Ahmed A. H. Kadle, Shadia A. Mohamed, Abdalla M. Ibrahim, Mihad F. Alawad- Sero-
epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in Somalia
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. V, Issue 6 / September 2017
2930
Rose Bengal Plate Test (RBPT): All serum samples were
initially screened by RBPT using Brucella abortus strain 1119-3
(USDA) (S1119-3) antigen kindly donated by Central
Veterinary Research Laboratory (CVRL), Khartoum-Sudan.
The tested serum samples and antigen were taken to the room
temperature before testing for half an hour. The test was
performed according to the procedure described by Alton et al.,
(1975) and OIE manual (2016) [19, 20].
Modified Rose Bengal Plate Test (mRBPT): All camel sera
were tested by mRBPT as described by Blasco et al., (1994)
[21]; this test is similar to the RBPT and differ in the volume
ratio of antigen and serum sample which is 1 to 3 respectively.
Serum Agglutination Test (SAT): A total of 69 serum
samples were included for SAT examination. These were the
RBPT and mRBPT positive sera (7 samples) and 62 serum
samples selected randomly from the RBPT and mRBPT
negative samples. This test was performed in microplates
according to Alton et al., (1975) and OIE manual (2016) [19,
20] using B. abortus strain 1119-3 (USDA) (S1119-3). Serum
samples showing 30 or more IU per ml were considered positive
[20].
Competitive Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay
(cELISA): All serum samples tested by SAT were re-evaluated
by cELISA. The competitive enzyme linked Immunosorbent
assay (cELISA) was done and its results were interpreted
according to the instructions of the manufacture manual
(SVANOVIR® Brucella-Ab cELISA test kits, Svanova Biotech
AB Uppsala, Sweden). Any serum sample which gave 30% or
more percent inhibition (pi) was considered positive.
Ahmed A. H. Kadle, Shadia A. Mohamed, Abdalla M. Ibrahim, Mihad F. Alawad- Sero-
epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in Somalia
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. V, Issue 6 / September 2017
2931
DATA MANAGEMENT AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:
The data obtained from the field were recorded in notebook and
later stored in Microsoft Excel and analysed using software
SPSS® version 20. Chi-square test (X2) was used to identify the
statistical differences between the different variables associated
with seropositive camels. The agreement between different
serological tests was calculated using Kappa analysis. The
differences were considered statistically significant when P <
0.05.
RESULTS
Seroprevalence of Camel Brucellosis using different
serological tests:
The overall seroprevalence rate of camel brucellosis at herd
level was 18.8% and 31.2% using RBPT and modified RBPT
respectively while at individual level was 1.7% and 3.9%
respectively (table 2). In both individual and herd levels, the
statistical difference between the three districts was
insignificant.
Out of the 11 camel herds further examined using SAT
and cELISA, the results revealed that 5 herds (45.5%) and 4
herds (36.4%) were seropositive to Brucella antibodies
respectively. Whereas, at individual level the prevalence was
10.1% for both SAT and cELISA tests (table 3).The estimated
overall survey adjusted true animal level seroprevalence was
3.9% (7/180) for both SAT and cELISA, Based on cELISA, the
percent inhibition (pi) of the seroprevalence of camel brucellosis
is ranged from 40% to 77% (table 4.12).
Comparative results between different production
systems:
The seroprevalence of brucellosis in camels under extensive
management system was 3.6% by mRBPT, 8.7% by SAT, and
Ahmed A. H. Kadle, Shadia A. Mohamed, Abdalla M. Ibrahim, Mihad F. Alawad- Sero-
epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in Somalia
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. V, Issue 6 / September 2017
2932
8.7% by cELISA. No antibodies were detected from these
nomadic camels using RBPT. The seroprevalence of brucellosis
in camels under semi-intensive management system was 2.4%,
4%, 10.9% and 10.9% by using RBPT, mRBPT, SAT and
cELISA respectively (table 5 and 6). However, the
seroprevalence rates for all serological tests used in this study
were not statistically significant in the semi-intensive managed
camels as compared to the camels in the extensive management
system (P > 0.05) as presented in table (5 and 6).
Level of agreement in the sensitivity between the four
serological tests:
The lowest positivity rate was obtained by the RBPT (table 4).
All serological tests were able to confirm the positivity of the 3
samples detected negative by RBPT. Four out of the 62
negative samples by RBPT were found positive by mRBPT, SAT
and cELISA. Only one sample from these samples was resulted
positive by both mRBPT and SAT, moreover it was found
negative by cELISA and vice versa with another serum sample
(table 7). Thus, eight out of 180 camel serum samples were
positive to Brucella antibodies by at least one of the four
serological tests used in this study (table 7). Therefore, the
overall seroprevalence for the present study was 4.4% and
31.3% at individual and herd levels respectively. As shown in
table (8), when compared RBPT to cELISA, (taking ELISA to be
the gold standard in this study), the sensitivity of the RBPT is
42.9% .The level of agreement between RBPT and cELISA
using kappa analysis was moderate agreement with a kappa
value of (0.589) according to Dohoo [22]. When compared
modified RBPT to cELISA the sensitivity (85.7%) was higher
than that of the RBPT with slightly similar specificity of
(98.4%). Perfect agreement between mRBPT and cELISA was
proven by calculating the kappa value (0.841) (table 9). As
delineated in table (10), the comparison between SAT and
cELISA was similar to that of mRBPT. The sensitivity was
Ahmed A. H. Kadle, Shadia A. Mohamed, Abdalla M. Ibrahim, Mihad F. Alawad- Sero-
epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in Somalia
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. V, Issue 6 / September 2017
2933
(85.7%) and the specificity was (98.4%). Thus the level of
agreement appears perfect with a kappa value (0.841).
Questionnaire Results:
Although no statistically significant difference (P=0.78) was
observed between camels in contact with small ruminants and
unaccompanied camels, the present work revealed that nearly
half (49%) of the respondents keep camels with small
ruminants. All of the respondents (100%) consume raw camel
milk. Moreover, 77% of the camel owners interviewed did not
know brucellosis. Almost all camel herders handle the abortion
material and other excreta with bare hands. The abortion cases
in studied farms were (63%). The frequency of abortion of 13%
of these abortion cases were occur repeatedly. The cases of
retention of placenta were recorded in 63% of the interviewed
herds. The rate of mastitis was (94%).The majority of
respondents (72%) mentioned different causes of abortion.
However, only 23% had stated that Brucella as one of the cause.
The rest of interviewees who know the causes of abortion (48%)
mentioned different causes including trypanosomiasis, tick
paralysis and environmental stress. The majority of
interviewed camel farmers (77%) send camels with proven
reproductive problems to slaughterhouses. Only (22%) leave it
within the herd without medication.
DISCUSSION
In the present study, the seroprevalence of camel brucellosis in
Banadir region of Somalia was 1.7% by RBPT, 3.9% by mRBPT,
10.1% by SAT and 10.1% by cELISA. However, the estimated
seroprevalence adjusted confirmed brucellosis infection was
3.9% using both SAT and cELISA.
The overall seroprevalence of brucellosis in this study
was 4.4% (8 out 180). This is in agreement with the studies
obtained from camels in UAE (4.4%) [23], Ethiopia (4.4%) [24]
Ahmed A. H. Kadle, Shadia A. Mohamed, Abdalla M. Ibrahim, Mihad F. Alawad- Sero-
epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in Somalia
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. V, Issue 6 / September 2017
2934
and Sudan (4.9%) [25]. Lower seroprevalence was reported
before in camels from Somalia (3.1%) [16] and (0.3%) [15], and
Ethiopia (2.4%) [26]. Higher seroprevalence of camel brucellosis
has been also reported in Somalia (10.4%) [14]. additionally, our
result is higher than that reported in Egypt (2.3%) [27]. Higher
prevalence rates were reported in Ethiopia (7.6%) [28], Kenya
(10.5%) [29], Sudan (40.5%) [30], Yemen (11%) [31], Saudi
Arabia (8%) [32] and Kuwait (14.8%) [33]. The low
seroprevalence (4.4%) detected in the present study might be
due to the low density of camel population kept in a widely
extended grazing or/and farm land which reduce the
concentration and close contact of camels. Moreover, the good
practice of herders’ timely culling of camels with proven
reproductive problems from the herds might have contributed
to the current low prevalence.
Our results revealed that modified RBPT detected more
positive cases than the RBPT, actually RBPT is validated and
its antigen standardized to screen bovine samples for
brucellosis. Thus, mRBPT could be an alternative test to
advantageously replace the RBPT for the screening of
brucellosis in camels; and the test is recommended by the OIE
for camel serum samples screening for brucellosis antibodies.
On the other hand, there were no differences between mRBPT
and SAT in terms of sensitivity. Four (6.5%) of the 62 RBPT-
negative samples were positive on the cELISA, giving that the
RBPT have missed 6.5% of seropositive (false negative) camels.
Similar findings comparing different serological tests were
reported by Omer et al., (2010) [30]. The later author found that
cELISA detected 2.1% more positives than the RBPT. In the
present study, a perfect agreement between mRBPT, SAT and
cELISA was proven by calculating Kappa values (0.841) with
high sensitivity of (85.7%) of all tests, while the RBPT have
only a sensitivity of (42.9%) and Kappa value of (0.589) when
compared to the cELISA. Thus, our results suggest combining
Ahmed A. H. Kadle, Shadia A. Mohamed, Abdalla M. Ibrahim, Mihad F. Alawad- Sero-
epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in Somalia
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. V, Issue 6 / September 2017
2935
cELISA with either mRBPT or SAT for detection of Brucella
antibodies in camels.
Although no statistically significant difference (P>0.05)
observed between the two production systems, the present
study agreed with many authors [11, 32, 34] that higher
seroprevalence was found in semi-intensive camel farms (4.0%)
than extensively managed camels (3.6%). However, both
production systems in this study were in the range of the low
prevalence rate (2-5%) as reported by Abbas [12]. This is might
be contributed by the low concentration of camel population
kept in both systems which reduces the chances of contact
between animals which is one of the factors of likelihood of
Brucella infection [35].
In contrary to the established fact, no significant
difference was observed in the prevalence of brucellosis
between camels co-herded with small ruminants and camels
kept alone in this study. Even though Bekele (2004), [11] and
Al-Majali et al. (2008) [34] have reported that contact of camel
herds with small ruminants were a contributing risk factor to
brucellosis at herd and individual levels [11, 34]. A high
number (77%) of interviewees did not know brucellosis.
Moreover, all respondents manage abortion materials and other
excreta with bare hands. In addition to that, 100% of the
participants consume raw camel milk. These findings can
potentially play a major role of transmission of the disease in
both animals and human.
In conclusion: The present study revealed that the
seroprevalence of brucellosis in camels from Banadir region of
Somalia was low (4.4%). Although the seroprevalence of camel
brucellosis is low, the disease still poses a considerable risk that
contributes to the occurrence of the disease in an unaffected
animals and herds and to the public health because of its
zoonotic nature as well as market value of the camels.
Therefore, the study recommends further brucellosis
Ahmed A. H. Kadle, Shadia A. Mohamed, Abdalla M. Ibrahim, Mihad F. Alawad- Sero-
epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in Somalia
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. V, Issue 6 / September 2017
2936
epidemiological studies in camels, other ruminants and human.
Isolation and identification of the Brucella biovars in Somalia
will leads to selection of the best option of control strategy
suitable to country. This will lead to improvement of animal
and human health.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank Abrar University for allowing
us to use their laboratory facilities to carry out part of sample
analysis and for funding this research all through. We also
want to thank Dr. Maha Khojaly, Head Department of Brucella
(CVRL), Khartoum-Sudan for her valuable assistance. Our
appreciations also belong to Dr. Abdulkarim Abdulle Yusuf for
his kind assistance during blood sample collection. We would
like also to thank camel farmers of Banadir region for allowing
us to sample their animals and took their precious time to take
part in the questionnaire survey.
Ahmed A. H. Kadle, Shadia A. Mohamed, Abdalla M. Ibrahim, Mihad F. Alawad- Sero-
epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in Somalia
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. V, Issue 6 / September 2017
2937
REFERENCES
1. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2004).
Somalia, towards a Livestock Sector Strategy. Final Report.
FAO, World Bank Cooperative Programme. European Union,
Report No. 04/001 IC-SOM.
2. Abdurahman O. Sh. And Bornstein S. (1991). Diseases of
camels in Somalia and Prospect for Better health. Nomadic
peoples, No 29. Pp. 104-112.
3. Ahmed A. Abokor (1987) the camel in Somali oral
traditions. SASA/SIAS (Uppsala), Pp. 31 – 46.
4. Talle, A. and Abdullahi, A.M. (1993). Labour resources in
pastoral production: Some implications of increased trading. In:
Pastoral Production in Central Somalia. Baumann, M.P.O.,
Janzen J. and Schwartz, H.J. (eds) (1993). Deutsche
Gessellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbiet (GTZ), Eschborn.
Pp. 113-128.
5. Walker L. R., (1999). Brucella. In Veterinary Microbiology.
Hirsh D. C. and Zee Y. C. Blackwell Science. Pp. 196-202.
6. WHO technical report series, no. 740 (1986). Joint FAO-
WHO expert committee on brucellosis. 6th report. Geneva:
World Health Organization. Pp. 56–58.
7. Robinson A., (2003). Guidelines for coordinated human and
animal brucellosis surveillance. Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), Animal Production and Health Paper 156,
Rome.
8. Kadle, A.A. H. (2015). A Review on Ruminant and Human
Brucellosis in Somalia. Open Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 5,
Pp. 133-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojvm.2015.56018
9. Gwida, M., El-Gohary, A., Melzer, F., Khan, I., Rosler,
U. and Neubauer, H. (2012). Brucellosis in Camels. Research
in Veterinary Science, 92, Pp. 351-355.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.05.002
10. Wernery U. (2016). Camelid Brucellosis: A Review. J
Bacteriol Mycol.; 3(1): 1019.
Ahmed A. H. Kadle, Shadia A. Mohamed, Abdalla M. Ibrahim, Mihad F. Alawad- Sero-
epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in Somalia
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. V, Issue 6 / September 2017
2938
11. Bekele M. B. (2004). Sero-epidemiological study of
brucellosis in camels (Camelus dromedarius) in Borena lowland
pastoral areas, southern Ethiopia. Addis Ababa University,
FVM, Debrezeit, MSc Thesis.
12. Abbas, B. and Agab, H., (2002). A review of camel
brucellosis. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 55. Pp. 47–56.
13. E. Díaz Aparicio, (2013). Epidemiology of Brucellosis in
Domestic Animals Caused by Brucella melitensis, Brucella suis
and Brucella abortus. Revue Scientifiqueet Technique
(International Office of Epizootics), 32, 53-60.
14. Andreani E., S. Prosperi, A. H. Salim and A. M. Arush,
(1982). Serological and bacteriological investigation on
brucellosis in domestic ruminants of the Somali Democratic
Republic. Rev. Elev. Med. Vet., 35. Pp. 329 – 333.
15. Baumann, M.P. and Zessin, K.H. (1992). Productivity
and Health of Camels (Camelusdromedarius) in Somalia:
Associations with Trypanosomosis and Brucellosis. Tropical
Animal Health and Production, 24, Pp. 145-156.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02359606
16. Ghanem Y. M., El-khodery S. A., Saad A. A.
Abdelkader A. H. Heybe A. and Musse Y. A., (2009).
Seroprevalence of camel brucellosis (Camelusdromedarius) in
Somaliland. Trop. Anim. Health prod., 41. Pp. 1779 – 1786.
17.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banaadir, Internet search,
Accessed on 2017
18.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogadishu, Internet search,
Accessed on 2017
19. ALTON G.G., JONES L.M. & PIETZ D . E . (1975).
Laboratory techniques in brucellosis. WHO Monograph Series
No. 55, 2nd edition, WHO, Geneva.
20. OIE Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for
Terrestrial Animals (2016). Chapter 2.1.4. Brucellosis
(Brucella abortus, B. melitensis and B. suis).OIE. Pp. 1-44.
21. Blasco JM, Garin-Bastuji B, Marin CM, Gerbier G,
Fanlo J, Jiménez de Bagués MP, Cau C. (1994).Efficacy of
Ahmed A. H. Kadle, Shadia A. Mohamed, Abdalla M. Ibrahim, Mihad F. Alawad- Sero-
epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in Somalia
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. V, Issue 6 / September 2017
2939
different Rose Bengal and complement fixation antigens for the
diagnosis of Brucella melitensis infection in sheep and goats.
Veterinary record, 134, Pp. 415-420.
22. Dohoo, I. R, Wayne, M., and Styhn, H., (2003).
Veterinary Epidemiologic Research. AVC Inc. Pp. 39-47.
23. Maymona A Mohammed, Mohamed T Shigidy and
Abdulwahab Y Al-Juboori (2013). Sero-prevalence and
Epidmiology of Brucellosis in Camels, Sheep and Goats in Abu
Dhabi Emirate. Int. J. Anim. Veter. Adv., 5. Pp. 82-86.
24. Domenech J. (1977). Brucellose de dromadaire en
Ethiopie (serological survey of one humped camel brucellosis in
Ethiopia). Revue de` Elevage et MedicineVeterinaire des Pays
Tropicaux, 30. Pp. 141-142.
25. DAMIR H., KENYON S. J., KHALAF ALLA A.E. &
IDRIS O. F. (1984). Brucella antibodies in Sudanese camels.
Trop. Anim. Hlth Prod., 16. Pp. 209-212.
26. Tilahun B., Bekana M., Belihu K. and Zewdu E. (2013).
Camel brucellosis and management practices in Jijiga and
Babile districts, Eastern Ethiopia. J. Vet. Med. Anim. Health,
5(3), Pp. 81-86.
27. El-Sawalhy, A. A., Montaser, A. M. and Rizk, L. G.
(1996). Diagnostic and biochemical evaluation of camel
brucellosis. Vet. Med. J. Giza. 44 (2): Pp. 323–329.
28. Mekonnen H. and Sisay W. Z. (2012). Seroprevalence of
brucella infection in camel and its public health significance in
selected districts of afar region, Ethiopia. Jenvos, 1(2), Pp. 91-
98.
29. Wanjohi M., Gitao C. G. and Bebora L. (2012). The
prevalence of Brucella spp. In camel milk marketed from North
Eastern Province, Kenya. Res. Opin. Anim. Vet. Sci., 2. Pp. 425-
434.
30. Omer M.M., Musa M.T., Bakhiet M.R. and Perrett L.
(2010). Brucellosis in camels, cattle and humans: associations
and evaluation of serological tests used for diagnosis of the
Ahmed A. H. Kadle, Shadia A. Mohamed, Abdalla M. Ibrahim, Mihad F. Alawad- Sero-
epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in Somalia
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. V, Issue 6 / September 2017
2940
disease in certain nomadic localities in Sudan. Rev. sci. tech.
Off. int. Epiz., 29 (3), Pp. 663-669
31. Maged Ahmed Al-Garadi, Abdullah Al-hothi and
Abdulghani Al-sharma (2015). Bacteriological and
serological study on brucellosis infection in camel (Camelus
dromedaries), Al-Hodeida governorate, Yemen. International
Journal of Advanced Research, 3 (1), Pp. 786-791.
32. Radwan A, Bekairi S, Mukayel AA. (1992). Treatment of
Brucella melitensis infection in sheep and goats with
oxytetracycline combined with streptomycin. Rev Sci Tech., 11,
Pp. 845-857.
33. Al-Khalaf, S. and El-Khaldi, A. (1989). Brucellosis of
camels in Kuwait. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology and
Infectious Diseases, 12: Pp. 1-4.
34. Al-Majali, A.M., Al-Qudah, K. M., Al-Tarazi, Y.H. and
AL-Rawshdeh, O. F., (2008). Risk Factors Associated with
Camel Brucellosis in Jordan. Tropical Animal Health and
Production 40. Pp. 193-200.
35. Radostits, O. M., Gay, C. C., Hinchcliff, K. W. and
Constable, P. D. (2006). Diseases associated with Brucella
speciesIn: Veterinary Medicine: A textbook of the diseases of
cattle, horses, sheep, Pigs and Goats. 10th ed. Elsevier, Pp. 963
– 965.
Ahmed A. H. Kadle, Shadia A. Mohamed, Abdalla M. Ibrahim, Mihad F. Alawad- Sero-
epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in Somalia
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. V, Issue 6 / September 2017
2941
Table 1: Number of camels sampled in the study area
Region
Districts
Number of camels
sampled
Number of herds
Production System
Total
Female
Male
Extensive
Semi-intensive
Banadir
Daynile
85
83
2
11
33
52
Yaqshid
23
22
1
1
23
0
Kahda
72
69
3
4
0
72
Total
180
174
6
16
56
124
Total
180
Table 2: Seroprevalence of camel brucellosis at herd and individual
levels using RBPT and mRBPT:
District
Number
of herds
RBPT
Positive
(%)
P-
value
mRBPT
Positive
(%)
P-
value
Number
of
samples
RBPT
Positive
(%)
P-
value
mRBPT
Positive
(%)
P-
value
Daynile
11
2 (18.2%)
0.85
2
(18.2%)
0.16
85
2 (2.4%)
0.71
2 (2.4%)
0.37
Kahda
4
1 (25.0%)
2
(50.0%)
72
1 (1.4%)
3 (4.2%)
Yaqshid
1
0 (0.0%)
1 (100%)
23
0 (0.0%)
2 (8.7%)
Total
16
3 (18.8%)
5
(31.2%)
180
3 (1.7%)
7 (3.9%)
Table 3: Seroprevalence of camel brucellosis at herd and individual
levels using SAT and c-ELISA:
District
Number
of
herds
SAT
Positive
(%)
P-
value
cELISA
Positive
(%)
P-
value
Number
of
samples
SAT
Positive
(%)
P-
value
cELISA
Positive
(%)
P-
value
Daynile
7
2 (28.6%)
0.28
2 (28.6%)
0.38
40
2 (5.0%)
0.24
2 (5.0%)
0.24
Kahda
3
2 (66.7%)
1 (33.3%)
19
3 (15.8%)
3 (15.8%)
Yaqshid
1
1 (100%)
1 (100%)
10
2 (20.0%)
2 (20.0%)
Total
11
5 (45.5%)
4 (36.4%)
69
7 (10.1%)
7 (10.1%)
Table 4: Serological test results of the serum samples from camels in
Banadir
Number of
samples
RBPT
mRBPT
SAT
cELISA
P+ve
(%)
N-ve
(%)
P+ve
(%)
N-ve
(%)
P+ve
(%)
N-ve
(%)
P+ve
(%)
N-ve
(%)
180 for RBPT
& mRBPT
69 for SAT &
cELISA
3(1.7)
177(98.3%)
7(3.9%)
173(96.1%)
7(10.1%)
62(89.9%)
7(10.1%)
62(89.9%)
Table 5: Prevalence of camel brucellosis in relation to the production
systems using standard RBPT and modified RBPT
Description
Category
Total
sample
RBPT
positive (%)
P-value
mRBPT
positive (%)
P-value
Production
System
Extensive
56
0 (0.0%)
0.24
2 (3.6%)
0.88
Semi-intensive
124
3 (2.4%)
5 (4.0%)
Total
180
3 (1.7%)
7 (3.9%)
Ahmed A. H. Kadle, Shadia A. Mohamed, Abdalla M. Ibrahim, Mihad F. Alawad- Sero-
epidemiological Study on Camel Brucellosis in Somalia
EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. V, Issue 6 / September 2017
2942
Table 6: Prevalence of camel brucellosis in relation to the production
systems using SAT and cELISA
Description
Category
Total
sample
SAT positive
(%)
P-value
cELISA
positive (%)
P-value
Production
System
Extensive
23
2 (8.7%)
0.78
2 (8.7%)
0.78
Semi-intensive
46
5 (10.9%)
5 (10.9%)
Total
69
7 (10.1%)
7 (10.1%)
Table 7: Comparison of serological test results
P+ve Sample Identification
RBPT
mRBPT
SAT
cELISA
SOCM 34
–
+
+
+
SOCM 36
–
+
+
+
SOCM 53
+
+
+
+
SOCM 56
–
+
+
+
SOCM 83
+
+
+
+
SOCM 110
+
+
+
+
SOCM 129
–
–
–
+
SOCM 145
–
+
+
–
Table 8: Comparison of RBPT and cELISA test results
RBPT
cELISA
Total
Positive
Negative
Positive
3
0
3
Negative
4
62
66
Total
7
62
69
Sensitivity
42.9%
Specificity
100.0%
Overall agreement
94.2%
Kappa value
0.589%
Table 9: Comparison of mRBPT and cELISA test results
mRBPT
cELISA
Total
Positive
Negative
Positive
6
1
7
Negative
1
61
62
Total
7
62
69
Sensitivity
85.7%
Specificity
98.4%
Overall agreement
97.1%
Kappa value
0.841
Table 10: Comparison of SAT and cELISA test results
SAT
cELISA
Total
Positive
Negative
Positive
6
1
7
Negative
1
61
62
Total
7
62
69
Sensitivity
85.7%
Specificity
98.4%
Overall agreement
97.1%
Kappa value
0.841
