| 1. |
- Bett, Bernard, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of flood irrigation on the risk of selected zoonotic pathogens in an arid and semi-arid area in the eastern Kenya
- 2017
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE. - 1932-6203. ; 12:5
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To investigate the effects of irrigation on land cover changes and the risk of selected zoonotic pathogens, we carried out a study in irrigated, pastoral and riverine areas in the eastern Kenya. Activities implemented included secondary data analyses to determine land use and land cover (LULC) changes as well as human, livestock and wildlife population trends; entomological surveys to characterize mosquitoes population densities and species distribution by habitat and season; and serological surveys in people to determine the risk of Rift Valley fever virus (RVFV), West Nile fever virus (WNV), dengue fever virus (DFV), Leptospira spp. and Brucella spp. Results demonstrate a drastic decline in vegetation cover over R approximate to 25 years particularly in the irrigated areas where cropland increased by about 1,400% and non-farm land (under closed trees, open to closed herbaceous vegetation, bushlands and open trees) reduced by 30-100%. The irrigated areas had high densities of Aedes mcintoshi, Culexspp. and Mansonia spp. (important vectors for multiple arboviruses) during the wet and dry season while pastoral areas had high densities of Ae. tricholabis specifically in the wet season. The seroprevalences of RVFV, WNV and DFV were higher in the irrigated compared to the pastoral areas while those for Leptospira spp and Brucella spp. were higher in the pastoral compared to the irrigated areas. It is likely that people in the pastoral areas get exposed to Leptospira spp by using water fetched from reservoirs that are shared with livestock and wildlife, and to Brucella spp. by consuming raw or partially cooked animal source foods such as milk and meat. This study suggests that irrigation increases the risk of mosquito-borne infections while at the same time providing a protective effect against zoonotic pathogens that thrive in areas with high livestock population densities.
|
|
| 2. |
- Grace, Delia, et al.
(författare)
-
Poor livestock keepers : ecosystem – poverty – health interactions
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Biological Sciences. - : The Royal Society. - 0962-8436 .- 1471-2970. ; 372:1725
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Humans have never been healthier, wealthier or more numerous. Yet, present success may be at the cost of future prosperity and in some places, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, poverty persists. Livestock keepers, especially pastoralists, are over-represented among the poor. Poverty has been mainly attributed to a lack of access, whether to goods, education or enabling institutions. More recent insights suggest ecosystems may influence poverty and the self-reinforcing mechanisms that constitute poverty traps in more subtle ways. The plausibility of zoonoses as poverty traps is strengthened by landmark studies on disease burden in recent years. While in theory, endemic zoonoses are best controlled in the animal host, in practice, communities are often left to manage disease themselves, with the focus on treatment rather than prevention. We illustrate this with results from a survey on health costs in a pastoral ecosystem. Epidemic zoonoses are more likely to elicit official responses, but these can have unintended consequences that deepen poverty traps. In this context, a systems understanding of disease control can lead to more effective and pro-poor disease management. We illustrate this with an example of how a system dynamics model can help optimize responses to Rift Valley fever outbreaks in Kenya by giving decision makers real-time access to the costs of the delay in vaccinating. In conclusion, a broader, more ecological understanding of poverty and of the appropriate responses to the diseases of poverty can contribute to improved livelihoods for livestock keepers in Africa.This article is part of the themed issue 'One Health for a changing world: zoonoses, ecosystems and human well-being'.
|
|
| 3. |
- Lee, Hu Suk, et al.
(författare)
-
An investigation into aflatoxin M 1 in slaughtered fattening pigs and awareness of aflatoxins in Vietnam.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: BMC Veterinary Research. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1746-6148. ; 13:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) is a hydroxylated metabolite formed after aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) is consumed by humans and animals; it can be detected in urine, milk and blood. It is well recognized that AFB1 is toxic to humans and other animals. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies aflatoxins as group 1 carcinogens and AFM1 as group 2B carcinogen. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the exposure of pigs to aflatoxins as well as to assess the public awareness of aflatoxins among people in five provinces in Vietnam.RESULTS: A total of 1920 urine samples were collected from slaughterhouses located in five provinces. Overall, the positive rate of AFM1 was 53.90% (95% confidence interval 51.64-56.15) using a cut-off of 0.15 μg/kg (range: limit of detection to 13.66 μg/kg, median: 0.2 μg/kg and mean: 0.63 μg/kg). A total of 252 people from the general population were interviewed from 5 provinces, and overall 67.86% reported being aware of aflatoxins. We also found that men and more highly educated had significantly increased awareness of aflatoxins compared to the females and primary/secondary school group. The respective odds ratios (ORs) were as follows: "male" group (OR: 2.64), "high school educated" group (OR: 3.40) and "college/university or more educated" group (OR: 10.20).CONCLUSIONS: We can conclude that pigs in Vietnam are exposed to aflatoxins to varying degrees, and there may be a risk that pork products could contain AFM1. Further investigation is needed into the possible health impacts as well as to aid in establishing regulations for animal feed to reduce the health impacts in humans and animals.
|
|
