American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research 9 (5): 19-135, 014 ISSN 1818-6785 IDOSI Publications, 014 DOI: 10.589/idosi.aejsr.014.9.5.86147 Prevalence of Poultry Coccidiosis in Gondar Town, Nor West Eiopia Hadas Gebretensae, Mebrhatu Gebreyohannes and Abebe Tesfaye University of Gondar, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Veterinary Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, Gondar, Eiopia Abstract: A cross sectional study was conducted from October 013 up to April 014 in Gondar town to determine e prevalence of poultry coccidiosis and to identify e associated risk factors. Fecal sample from a total of 384 chickens were taken from ree selected areas and flotation meod was employed to harvest coccidial oocysts. The result revealed at out of e 384 chickens, 165 (43%) of e chickens were found positive. e prevalence was higher in Private Farms (43.6%) followed by Markets (43%) and University of Gondar Veterinary Clinic (41%). The prevalence was found highly statistically significant (P<0.05) across age groups, in which 68.1% <3 mons old chickens and 37.5% in chickens of greater or equals to ree mons old. A statistically significant difference (P<0.05) in prevalence of coccidiosis was also noted across breeds of chickens, wi e prevalence of 48.7%, 44.% and 6.8% in local, white leghorn and brown cucar respectively. There was a significant difference (P<0.05) among e different housing types wi e prevalence of 49.1% in Floor, 45.7% in Backyard and 5.6% in Cages. There was no statistically significant difference (P<0.05) on e prevalence between male (44.3%) and female (4.4%) chickens. The effect of body condition on e disease prevalence was assessed and relatively high prevalence was recorded in ose chickens which have poor body condition (43.8%) an ose chicken which have good body condition (4.7%) but not significant (P>0.05). This study showed at coccidiosis was prevalent in e study area and is signifies e need for intervention rough awareness creation among farmers and veterinarians. Key words: Coccidiosis Flotation Poultry Prevalence INTRODUCTION production system, small scale and large-scale intensive poultry production systems. The main objective of rearing In developing countries poultry production offers an chicken in all production systems is concerned wi egg opportunity to feed e fast growing human population and meat production, for income generation and home and to provide income for resource poor farmers. consumption [5]. Moreover, poultry in many parts of e modern world is In e past coccidiosis was one of e diseases most considered e chief source of not only cheaper protein of feared by commercial poultry growers in e U.S.A. Dea animal origin but also of high quality human food [1]. losses of 0% or more were common. Backyard growers The total poultry population in Eiopia is estimated to be are usually so small at coccidiosis was not a problem, 56.5 million []. The total national egg and poultry meat but as e size of free range flock increases, coccidiosis production is estimated to be 78000 and 7300 metric tons becomes a reat [6]. respectively, of which local birds, kept under e Coccidiosis is an economically important disease in traditional systems of production, contribute 98.5% and chicken caused by e Eimeria species of in e genus 99.% [1, 3]. Three types of poultry production systems Eimeria family Eimeridae order Cucoccidioria and phylum are identified in Eiopia [4]. These are backyard poultry Spicomplera [7]. Infection by coccidian is sufficient Corresponding Auor: AbebeTesfaye, University of Gondar, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Veterinary Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, P.O. Box, 196, Gondar, Eiopia. 19
Am-Euras. J. Sci. Res., 9 (5): 19-135, 014 number to produce clinical manifestations of e slopes and in valleys and has ree small rivers, many diseases is called coccidiosis[8]. E. tenella and E. streams and a lake. The city has a population of 186,077 necatrix are e most paogenic species. E. acervulina, [17]. According to Office of Agriculture and Rural E. maxima and E. mivati are common and slightly to Development, e livestock population in e area moderately paogenic; E. brunetti is uncommon but comprises of cattle (8,0), goat (,590), sheep (,695), paogenic when it does occur. E. mitis, E. praecox and horse (1,065), donkey (9,001) and unknown number of E. hagani are relatively non-paogenic species [9, 10]. poultries are found [18]. In is study areas peoples The species of Coccidia identified in Eiopia are E. practice poultry production by using different rearing tenella, E. necatrix, E. maxima and E. acervulina [11]. E. system like cage, floor and backyard production system mivati was also reported [1]. The birds become which is currently become popular and deep litter. Bo depressed, have ruffled feaers, e wings droop, have local and exotic poultry breeds are available in is study diarrhea and tend to huddle. Food and water consumption area. usually decreases and may become emaciated and dehydrated. Laying hens will experience a reduction in Study Population: The study was conducted on rate of egg production. Cecal coccidiosis may produce poultry in selected sites of Gondar town. The information bloody droppings and anemia [9, 13]. regards to age, breed, body condition and short Coccidiosis is endemic in Eiopia, causing great interview of owners about e management and housing economic losses, particularly in young growing birds in type of eir chicken was made. Chickens were kept under all production system [14]. In Eiopia, E.necatrix, backyard, floor and cage husbandry system. The study E.maxima and E.tenella are endemic in all parts of e birds were grouped into sex (male and female), breeds poultry and affect many young growing birds [15].In e (White leghorn, Brown cucar and local) and ages was past year coccidiosis used to be e most important cause classified as young (less an ree mons) and adult of mortality in all farms. Incidences of e disease were as (greater or equals to ree mons) according to Comfort higher as 80% usually occurring in e form of outbreaks et al. [19]. [16]. The disease contributed to be a problem wi prevalence rate of 50.8% and 11% in deep litter intensive Study Meodology system and backyard poultry production systems, Feacal Sample Examination: Freshly deposited feacal respectively [1]. Alough in Eiopia quanitative loses samples of poultry birds of different ages, breed and sex due to coccdiosis are not well documented. Reports were collected from e chicken sellers and examined indicate at e disease contributes to 8.4% and 11.86% oroughly. The samples were collected in clean plastic loss in profit in large scale farms and small scale farms sample bottle, which was pre-labeled indicating e age, respectively [11]. Regarding poultry coccdiosis in Gondar breed and sex of e chicken. The presence of feacal town, no research has been done particularly on local oocysts was determined, using e concentration by chickens. Therefore e objective of is study was: flotation meod [0]. To estimate e prevalence of poultry coccidiosis in Study Design: A cross sectional study design was e study area. conducted in poultries to estimate e prevalence and risk To identify e associated risk factors of poultry factors of poultry coccidiosis in Gondar town. The sample coccidiosis in e study area. was processed in University of Gondar, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Parasitology Laboratory. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sampling Meod: Simple random sampling meod was Study Area: The study was conducted in Gondar city, employed to determine prevalence and associated risk capital of Nor Gondar zone in Amhara regional state. factors of poultry coccidiosis in e study area. It is located 750 km Nor West of e capital city, Addis Ababa. The city has an latitude and longitude of \1 36'N Sample Size Determination: The desire sample size for 37 8'E / 1.6 N 37.467 E wi an average temperature of e study was calculated using e following formula 0 C and an average annual rainfall of 1800 mm. Being a [1]wi 95% confidence interval, 5% absolute precision highland area, e city is spread on different mountains, and 50% expected prevalence as showed below, 130
Am-Euras. J. Sci. Res., 9 (5): 19-135, 014 1.96 P exp (1-_P exp) RESULTS n= d Over All Prevalence of Poultry Coccidiosis: Out of a total where, of 384 chickens examined for poultry coccidiosis, 165 were n= e required sample size, found positive. And e overall prevalence of poultry P exp= expected Prevalence, coccidiosis in e study area revealed at 43%. (Table 1). d= absolute precession As a result, 384 study populations were selected. Prevalence of Coccidiosis in Poultry on Site Basis: In is study, out of e total of 384 faecal samples Data Collection: While collecting feacal samples from examined 165 (43%) were positive for coccidial oocysts. study birds, all data was recorded wi pre-designed The highest prevalence (43.6%) was observed in chickens format and enter in to computer using Microsoft excel from private farms, followed by 43% from market and 41% spread sheet. The individual bird details such as bird from University of Gondar (UoG) Veterinary Clinic e identification, sex, age, breed type, medication history, difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05) management system and e housing type of e farms (Table ). were registered togeer. Prevalence of Poultry Coccidiosis on Sex Basis: Data Management and Analysis: All raw data generated The effect of sex on e disease prevalence was assessed from is study were coded and entered to Microsoft and relatively high prevalence was recorded in male office excel data base system. The findings were chickens (44.3%) an at of females (4.4%) as indicated analyzed using SPSS version-17.0 computer program; and in Table 3. However, e difference between sex groups data were analyzed to find percentage and Chi-squire (x ). was not statistically significant (P>0.05). P-value was determined for determination of e significance. Chi-square test was also used to determine Prevalence of Poultry Coccidiosis on Age Basis: e variation in infections among different risk factors of There was a highly significant difference in poultry e disease. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05 to coccidiosis between different age groups (P<0.05), where determine wheer ere are significant differences chickens wi less an ree mons age (68.1%) were between e parameters measured between e studied more affected an at of greater an or equal to ree variables. mons ages(37.5%) (Table 4). Table 1: Overall Prevalence of Poultry Coccidiosis Total of Sample Examined of Positive of negative 384 165 19 Overall 43% 57% Table : Prevalence of Coccidiosis in Poultry on site Basis Site Total examined of positive Prevalence % UOG vet-clinic 61 5 41% Private farms 41 105 43.6% 0.75 0.945 Markets 8 35 43% Table 3: Prevalence of Poultry Coccidiosis on Sex Basis Sex Total examined of positive Prevalence % Male 106 47 44.3% 1.133 0.889 Female 78 118 4.4% Table 4: Prevalence of Poultry Coccidiosis on Age Basis Age Total examined of positive Prevalence % <3 mon 69 47 68.1% 3 mon 315 118 37.5% 1.775 0.000 131
Am-Euras. J. Sci. Res., 9 (5): 19-135, 014 Table 5: Prevalence of Poultry Coccidiosis Breed Basis Breeds Total examined of positive Prevalence % White leghorn 15 95 44.% Brown cucar 56 15 6.8% Local 113 55 48.7.% 1.944 0.01 Table 6: Prevalence of Poultry Coccidiosis on Body Condition Basis Body condition Total examined of positive Prevalence % Good 79 119 4.7% Poor 105 46 43.8% 0.409 0.75 Table 7: Prevalence of Poultry Coccidiosis on Housing Type Basis Housing type Total examined of positive Prevalence % Cage 8 1 5.6% Floor 173 85 49.1% Backyard 19 59 45.7% 14.64 0.006 Table 8: Prevalence of Poultry Coccidiosis on Management System Basis Management System Total examined of positive Prevalence % Good 191 67 35.1% 0.005 Poor 193 98 50.8% 10.410 Table 9: Prevalence of Poultry Coccidiosis on Vaccination History Basis History Total examined of positive Prevalence % Yes 90 133 40.3% No 94 3 51.1% 0.939 0.168 Prevalence of Poultry Coccidiosis Breed Basis: Prevalence of Poultry Coccidiosis on Management There was a significant difference in poultry coccidiosis System Basis: There was a significant difference in e between e different breeds of chicken (P<0.05), where prevalence of poultry coccidiosis among management ose local breeds (48.7%) are more affected an systems (P<0.05), ose chickens which are managed white leghorn (44.%) and brown cucar (6.8%) chickens poorly were more affected (50.8%) an at of properly (Table 5). managed (35.1%) chickens (Table 8). Prevalence of Poultry Coccidiosis on Body Condition Prevalence of Poultry Coccidiosis on Vaccination History Basis: The effect of body condition on e disease Basis: Even ough ere was a variation in e prevalence was assessed and relatively high prevalence prevalence of poultry coccidiosis vaccinated chickens was recorded in ose chickens which have poor body (40.3%) and not vaccinated ones (51.1%), e degree of condition (43.8%) an ose chickens which have good statistical association revealed at ere was no any body condition (4.7%). However, e difference in significant difference among bo variables (P>0.05) prevalence of poultry coccidiosis between body (Table 9). conditions were not statistically significant (P>0.05) (Table 6). DISCUSSION Prevalence of Poultry Coccidiosis on Housing Type Basis: There was high significant difference in poultry coccidiosis between different housing types (Cage, Floor and Backyard) (P<0.05). Those chickens found in Floor were more affected (49.6%) an Backyard (45.7%) and Floor (5.6%) (Table 7). Coccidiosis is known to be e most prevalent and most important disease of poultry production worldwide and its prevalence and economic significance has been reviewed by different workers in different production system [11, ]. It is a problem of significant order meriting attention and implementation of control program.. 13
Am-Euras. J. Sci. Res., 9 (5): 19-135, 014 In e present study, e overall prevalence was 43%.The result of is research was very close to e finding of Mwale and Masika [3] (41.43%) and Netsanet [4] (38.5%) reported a prevalence of coccidiosis in Centane district (Sou Africa) and Kombolcha (Eiopia) respectively. However, e present result is not consistent wi e finding of Alemayehu [5] (0.57%) and Gari et al. [] (.58%) of prevalence s in deep litter system of exotic breed (Rhode Island Red) of chickens in Tiyo districts and Arsi Zone, Eiopia respectively. This variation in prevalence of e disease may be due to climatic condition of coccidian infection and differences in management systems of e farms. The prevalence of coccidiosis was relatively higher in male (44.3%) an female (4.4%) chicken. But, it was not statistically significant (P>0.05). This result is not consistent wi e previous studies [5] who reported a higher prevalence of poultry coccidiosis in female chickens an male chickens. This study also indicated at e prevalence of coccidiosis was relatively higher in grower (<3mons) (68.1%) an adults ( 3mons) (37.5%). There was a highly significant difference in poultry coccidiosis between different age groups (p<0.05). As indicated in most published literatures, significantly higher prevalence of coccidiosis is observed in young an adult birds as former immunity is not well developed [6]. The disease appears to reach climax at 5-7 weeks of age and as age exceeded 7 weeks, most birds will develop immunity and increase resistance to e disease [0]. However, is study is not consistent wi e report of [14] who stated at all ages of poultry are susceptible to infection. The prevalence rate of coccidiosis was relatively higher in ose local breeds (48.7%) an at of white leghorn (44.%) and brown cucar (6.8%) chickens. There was a significant difference in poultry coccidiosis between e different breeds of chickens (P<0.05). The occurrence of coccidial infection in local chicken might be due to local birds are allowed to scavengebinvilages wiout any restriction and us more likely get contact wi sporulated oocysts in faeces, which are e main source of infection and e present finding agreed wi work of Guale [1] and additionally ere might be due to concurrent parasitosis which are common in local chickens kept under traditional management system. However, is study disagree wi e previous report in Eiopia by Garie et al.[] who reported a higher prevalence was found in exotic (5.10%) breeds an local (1.41%) breed chickens. In is study, ere was high significant difference in poultry coccidiosis between different housing types (Cage, Floor and Backyard)(P<0.05). Chickens which are managed in backyard production system were more affected (45.7%) an Floor (49.1%) and Cage (5.6%) production systems. This may be due to poor management practices, malnutrition and non-use of coccidiostats as preventive measures. Poor poultry management where ere is overcrowding, leaking water troughs and accumulation of faeces are factors at contributed to e high prevalence rate. Bird s feed and water are contaminated by oocysts because e environment is damp especially at of e market place where nobody cares about cleaning e chicken cages. CONCLUSION The result of e current study showed at different putative risk factors have contributed for e occurrence of poultry coccidiosis infection in e study sites. Among ese age, breed, management system, housing system, sex, body conditions and vaccination history are e most common factors. Lack of effective biosecurity practices and inappropriate usage of coccidiostat as treatment modalities has also contributed for e higher infection rate of e disease. The deep litter system was also e main reasons and predisposing factors for e higher prevalence of coccidiosis in growers stocks an adult ones in ese study areas. These means at coccidiosis is still an important heal problem of poultry production in e study areas. Based on e above findings e following recommendations are forwarded: Bio security practices should be a primary concept in e prevention and control of coccidiosis, Maintaining recommended stocking density and avoiding raising of multiple age flocks in e same house should be practice, Awareness should be created among e society regarding e importance of e disease, Furer longitudinal and advanced studies should be conducted in e study area in order to know e clear status of e disease. ACKNOELEDGEMENT The auors would like to ank e University of Gondar for funding is research work. We also extend our sincere anks to all e laboratory technicians for assisting e laboratory work. 133
Am-Euras. J. Sci. Res., 9 (5): 19-135, 014 REFERENCES 1. EARO, 000. Animal Science Research Strategy Directorate. Poultry Research Strategy.Addis Ababa, July, pp: 1-33.. FAO/ILRI, 1995. Livestock development strategy for low income Countries. In proceeding of e Joint ILRI/FAO round table on countries, (ILRI/FAO). Addis Ababa Eiopia, pp:. 3. FAO/WB, 1993. Eiopian Livestock Sector Development Project Report No.4/93CP- ETH February, 17: 191-199. 4. Yami, A. and D. Tadelle, 1997. The Status of Poultry Research and Development in Eiopia. D.Z.A.R.C. Research Bulletin, 4: 40-46. 5. Nasser, M., J.E. Lohr, G.Y. Mebratu, K.H. Zessin, M.P.O. Baumann and Z. Ademe, 000. Oral Newcastle disease vaccination trials in Eiopia, Avian Paology, 9(1): 7-34. 6. Fantico, A., 005. Parasite Management for Natural and Organic Poultry Coccidiosis. http;// attar:neat. Org/attrar-pub/pdf/coccidiosis.pdf.www.saxonet.De/ coccidio.htm. 7. Taylor, M.A., R.L. Coop and R.L. Wall, 007. rd Veterinary Parasitology, 3 ed. Oxford, UK:Black Well Publishing, pp: 475-483. 8. Charlton, B.R., 006. Coccidiosis. In Avian Disease Manual. 5 ed, India International book Distributing Company in association wi American association of avian paologist, USA, pp: 153-156. Chickens. Poultry. Sci., 70(3): 504-508.Coccidiosis. Avian Dis., 34: 509-55. 9. Lillehoj, H.S. and J.M. Trout, 1993. Coccidia; A review of Recent Advances on Immunity and Vaccine Development. Avian Paology, (1): 3-31. 10. Soulsby, E.J.L., 198. Helmins, Arropods and Protozoan s of Domesticated Animals, 7 edition. London: BailliereTindall, pp: 345-349. 11. Meusela, S., 001. Studies on Prevalence and Economic Impacts of Poultry Coccidiosis in Different Production Systems in DebreZeit and Addis Ababa Eiopia. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Free University of Berlin, DebreZeit/Berlin, MSc esis. 1. Guale, F., 1997. Poultry Coccidiosis and Effect of Management System: An Assessment Trial in DebreZeit and its Surroundings. DVM esis, Faculty Veterinary Medicine, Addis Ababa Uinversity, Debrezeit. 13. Whitmarsh, S., 1997. Protozoan Poultry Diseases. Poultry Science Home page, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Mississippi State University. http://www. Misstate.edu/ dept/ poultry/ disproto. Htm 14. Julie, D.H., 005. Livestock Poultry Heal Programs Clemson University, Columbia, SC 94 (803) 788-60 jhelm@clemson.eduwww.clemson.edu/lph Updated March 1, 005 15. Safari, M., H. Kinung, T. Getachew, W. Hafez, K. Moges and G. Maios, 004. Assessement of Economic impact caused by poultry coccidiosis in small and large scale poultry farm in Debrezeit, Eiopia. International Journal of poultry Science, 3: 715-75. 16. Alamargot, J., 1987. Avian Paology of Industrial Poultry Farms in Eiopia Institute of agricultural Research (ed). First National Livestock Improvement Conference, Addis Ababa 11-13 Feb, IAR, pp: 114-117. 17. Ramaswamy, V. and R.H. Sharma, 011. Plastic Bags- Threat to Environment and Cattle Heal. A retrospective study from Gondar city, Eiopia. Special Issue on Environment for Sustainable Development Journal, (1): 7-10. 18. Central Statistical Auority (CSA), 008. Sample enumeration report on livestock and farm implement IV, Addis Ababa, Eiopia, pp: 6-136. 19. Comfort, A., Olanrewaju and A. Ritay, 013. Prevalence of Coccidiosis among Poultry Birds Slaughtered at Gwagwalad Main Mareket, Abuja, FCT, Nigeria. 0. Bowman, D.D. and Georgis, 003. Parasitology for Veterinarians.5 ed.u.s.a; Saunders, pp: 34-345. 1. Thrusfield, M., 005. Survey in Veterinary nd Epidemiology. ed. USA: Blackwell Science, Limited, Cambridge, USA, pp: 178-198.. Gari, G., G. Tilahun and Dorchies, 008. Study on poultry coccidiosis in Tiyo District, Arsi zone, Oromia Regional State, Eiopia. Intern. J. Poul. Sci., 7: 51-56. 3. Mwale, M. and P. Masika, 011. Point prevalence study of gastro-intestinal parasites in village chickens of Centane district, Sou Africa. Afr. J. Agri. Res., 6: 033-038. 4. Netsanet, W., 003. Poultry coccidiosis: its prevalence and distribution of Eimeria species in Kombolcha, Sou Wollo, Eiopia. DVM esis, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Addis Ababa University, Debreziet, Eiopia. 134
Am-Euras. J. Sci. Res., 9 (5): 19-135, 014 5. Alemayehu, T., A. Tekeselassie and S.A. Kassa, 6. Jordan, F., M. Pattison, D. Alexander and T. Faragher, 01. Prevalence study of poultry coccidosis in 00. Parasitic Diseases.In poultry Disease. 5 ed: small and large scale farms in Adis Ababa, Eiopia. Hang Kang:W.B.Saunders, pp: 405-40. ScientificJournal of Crop Science, 1: 6-31. 135