Effect of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) vaccination in linkage villages of IVRI's India

B P Singh, M C Sharma and Rupasi Tiwari

Joint Directorate of Extension Education, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar (U.P.) - 243 122
brajpal@ivri.up.nic.in   ;   mcsharma@ivri.up.nic.in   ;   rupasi@ivri.up.nic.in

Abstract

Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) is one of the most devastating disease of cloven-footed animals. The cost incurred for control or eradication is quite high. In India alone, the direct losses due to FMD, estimated to the tune of US$1230.32 million annually. To educate the livestock owners about FMD, various extension education programmes were implemented to change the attitude and behavior so as to increase the adoption of FMD vaccine. Therefore, the present study was conducted to study the effect of FMD vaccination in linkage villages of Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI). For the present study, a sample size of 1927 buffalo owners were taken from 12 selected villages of Bareilly district.

Majority of buffalo owners (48%) were found vaccinating their buffaloes against FMD from last 10 years and 73.74 per cent of buffalo owners were regular in vaccinating their buffaloes. IVRI was the main agency that created awareness about FMD vaccination for the 84.32 per cent of the buffalo owners. Further, 77.84 per cent of the buffalo owners reported no morbidity in their herd after vaccination against FMD and 37.15 per cent of the buffalo owners reported that they saved US$ 9.87-14.76 /lactation/animal by vaccination.

The results depicts that availability of the vaccination services and the awareness created by the Institute about FMD vaccination , the buffalo owners were regular in vaccinating their animals which has resulted into negligible cases of FMD in linkage villages.

Key Words: buffalo owners, FMD, linkage villages, vaccination

Introduction

Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) is one of the most devastating disease of cloven-footed animals caused by a group of seven antigenically different serotypes of extremely contagious and has a great potential for causing severe economic loss to both livestock and agricultural production. Though the disease was described as an epidemic in 1514, the agent responsible was first identified by Loeffler in 1897. This disease causes significant financial losses (Perry et al 1999). There are direct losses due to death in young animals, loss of milk and meat and a decrease in productive performance. The cost incurred for control or eradication is quite high. Besides, there are major indirect losses due to the imposition of trade restrictions (Anonymous 2001 and Rweyemamu and Leforban 1999).

Economical loss due to FMD is tremendous that occurred due to death of young animals, marked reduction in milk yield, abortion in advance stage of pregnancy and reduced working ability of the animals (Singh 2003), quality and quantity of meat, reduction in fertility, loss of quality of semen in breeding bull etc. (Yadav 2003), the diseases is also restrict the possible export of livestock and livestock products.

The poor farmers are most sufferers by this disease, because of non-availability of vaccine and lack of awareness about vaccination programme (Singh et al 1987). He has further reported that the economic losses due to FMD were more to the marginal farmers and in animals less than three years of age. Further, Shankar et al (2004) reported that there was no FMD outbreak at organized farm due to regular and proper vaccination.

This disease accounts milk losses of US$ 4.43 each year and on the basis of per buffalo, the loss is of US $6.15 in India (Saxena 1994), whereas the production is affected up to 30 % (Sharma and Kumar 2003). Annual report of DAH and D, Government of India (2001-2002) reported that during 2001, 1291 of bovine, 105 of buffaloes, 208 of ovines /caprine and 29 of swine died because of FMD outbreak.

Control of FMD, depends mainly on prophylactic immunization of susceptible animal population. It is indicated that control of FMD could lead to at least 5% annual increase in milk production and present level of export of meat (80,000 tones ) could be enhanced by 3-5 times (Bhat and Taneja 2001). Ahuja and Sen (2002) reported that for effective control of FMD about 60-80% of animals need to be covered under vaccination so as to control the outbreak of diseases. It can be made possible only through implementation of veterinary extension education for livestock owners about economics of the diseases and by readily availability of vaccination services. Kokate and Tyagi (1991) stated, absence of veterinary hospital, inaccessible distance and lack of extension efforts as reasons for non-adoption of vaccination by farmers, whereas Saxena (1994) stated that educated farmers were more likely to seek professional advice and to vaccinate their animals regularly. Dulay (1997) revealed a significant knowledge gain among farmers since the launching of a campaign about FMD.

The Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI), is providing vaccination services against FMD to the livestock owners in its linkage villages. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to study the effect of FMD vaccination in linkage villages of IVRI' India, in terms of adoption of FMD vaccination, buffalo morbidity before and after FMD vaccination, reducing the incidents and the benefits they got by vaccinating their animals .

Material and methods

The present study was undertaken in 12 selected villages of Bareilly district in Uttar Pradesh. The selected villages are the IVRI's linkage villages wherein extension activities such as farm trial, demonstration, infertility and animal health camp, kisan gosthi, field day, farmers workshop, livestock show, calf rally and vaccination campaign/services against contagious diseases (HS, FMD and PPR) of the Institute are going on since the establishment of Division of Extension Education in 1970 and implementation of other various research project such as Operational Research Project (ORP) in 1976, Lab to Land Programme (LLP) in 1979, 20 point economic programme in 1983 and establishment of Krishi Vigyan Kendra in 1986. To collect the relevant information , only those livestock owners were selected for the study who have participated in IVRI's extension activities and getting their animal vaccinated against FMD. For this study, a sample size of 1927 respondents from 12 selected villages of Bareilly district of Uttar Pradesh (India), were selected and data were collected, during the month of October- March 2005, with the help of pre structured interview schedule.
 

Results and discussion

Table No. 1 revealed that majority of the livestock owners (48.10%) were vaccinating their buffaloes against FMD, from last 10 years, whereas 37.31 per cent were adopting vaccination for more than 10 years, followed by the 24.28 per cent who were vaccinating their buffaloes from last 5 years.

Further, 73.74 per cent of buffalo owners were regularly vaccinating their animals against FMD (Table 1), followed by the 26.25 per cent who were irregular in vaccinating their animals. With regards to the agencies providing vaccination services to buffalo owners, Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI) was reported as main agency providing vaccination services to the majority of respondents (75.76 %). The next agencies were Animal Husbandry Department and Rotary club providing vaccination services to buffalo owners, as reported by 7.78 per cent and 9.18 per cent, respectively (Table 1).

Further majority of buffalo owners (84.32%) reported that IVRI is the main agencies/sources from which they learn about the vaccination of FMD, whereas 12.55 per cent and 3.11 percent of the buffalo owners learnt about vaccination of FMD from Animal Husbandry Department and the peer groups, respectively (Table 1).

In terms of reduction of milk yield of FMD affected animal, 57.13 per cent of the buffalo owners, who have not vaccinated their animals against FMD, reported that milk yield reduced up to 25 percent, whereas 24.49 per cent and 18.37 per cent of the buffalo owners reported milk yield reduction up to 50 per cent and more than 50 per cent , respectively due to infection of FMD in their animals (Table 2).

Saxena (1994) reported that FMD caused loss in terms of milk production and abortion. Further, he has reported that in India loss by FMD was 3,508 million litres of milk per year.

The response about "duration of stagnant reduced milk yield of FMD affected animals" the majority of the buffalo owners (50.09%), who do not vaccinate their animals against FMD, reported that from 16-30 days, the reduced milk yield by FMD remain same. Whereas 21.48% per cent of the respondents reported that FMD affected animals never return in earlier milk production as depicted in Table 2. Further, it is evident from Table 2 that majority of the buffalo owners (34.19 %) reported that FMD affected animal loss about 21-30 per cent of the total milk yield/lactation, followed by 24.80 per cent and 18.99 per cent of the buffalo owners who reported about 31- 40% and 11-20 % lose of the total milk yield per lactation. Similar findings were also reported by Mersie et al (1992) that FMD in Ethiopia caused loss in milk production and loss in draught power production for approximately 20 days.

Further, as the Table 3, revealed about morbidity by FMD per year before vaccination, majority of the buffalo owners (50.59 %) reported that before FMD vaccination, the morbidity rate was more than 75 per cent, followed by 27.29 per cent and 13.23 per cent of the buffalo owners who reported 51-75 per cent and 26-50 per cent of the morbidity rate, respectively, before vaccination.

Whereas no morbidity rate was reported after the animals vaccinated against FMD , as reported by 77.84 per cent of the buffalo owners (Table No. 4).

The morbidity rate by FMD is up to 100 per cent while mortality rate in adult is very low but in calves it is up to 20-25 per cent (Sharma and Kumar 2003). Kukietan and Chalajan (2000) reported that outbreak of FMD in a dairy farm was probably related to the inadequate knowledge of the farmers about FMD vaccination.

Pertaining to the benefits derived by the livestock owners by vaccination their buffaloes against FMD, 37.15 per cent of the them reported that they save US$9.87-14.76/ animals/lactation, whereas 25.53 per cent and 20.08 per cent of the buffalo owners were saving US$ 14.79-19.61 and US$ 4.95- 9.84/animal/lactation, if they vaccinate their animals against FMD (Table 5).

Saxena (1994) estimated the losses by FMD, due to loss in draught power, animal death and cost of treatment of US$ 446.11million . The average annual loss per animal due to the FMD in the country was estimated US$3.08, whereas, Davies (1988) reported that cost of annual vaccination in seven European Union (EU) countries were equivalent to the direct cost of 200 outbreak of FMD in these countries. Further, Mahajan and Rautmare 2005, reported the approximate cost of US$19.49, a farmer incurred on treatment of FMD affected buffalo (the cost category include, immediate loss per buffalo, loss in milk production , cost of treatment i.e., antibiotics, vitamins, disinfectants and service of veterinary officer and cost of mortality). The livestock owners can save this amount of expenditure on treatment by vaccinating their buffaloes against FMD.

The results of the study shows that because of the availability of the vaccination services and the awareness created by the Institute about FMD vaccination , the buffalo owners were regular in vaccinating their animals which has resulted into negligible cases of FMD in linkage villages. After eradication of rinderpest disease, it is the FMD for which scientifically planned prophylactic vaccination campaign and mass awareness programme through intensive extension educational programmes for the livestock owners need to be implemented. Horst et. al. (1999) has stated that veterinarians and farmers have to be trained in recognizing the clinical signs and encouraged to report suspicious cases to increase public awareness of diseases, which call for vigorous efforts to generate mass awareness among the farmers regarding the vaccination of animals against FMD.
 

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge the help and support provided by the Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar like timely availability of fund, vehicle and other infrastructure required to carry out the research.
 

References

AhujaV and Sen A 2002 Livestock Services Delivery and the Poor: Case of Rural Orissa. Centre for management in Agriculture IIM. Ahmedabad. Pp. 30-31.

Anonymous 2001 International Animal Health Code 10^th edition Paris France : Office International des Epizooties Chapter 2.1.1. Foot and Mouth Diseases.

Bhat P N and Taneja V K 2001 Foot and Mouth Diseases- Is it an International Convern now. Indian Dairyman. 53 (5):5

Davies G 1988 An economic analysis of foot and Mouth Diseases policy options-problems and opportunities. Acta veterinaaire Scandinvica, Supplement 84 : 423-424.

Dulay C P 1997 Effect of communication campaign on the knowledge, attitude and FMD control practices of backyard livestock raisers in selected municipalities of Laguna (Philippines) college, Laguna.

GOI 2002 Annual Report, Department of Animal Husbandry and dairying, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, Government of India.

Horst H S, de Vos C J, Tomassen F H M and Stelwagen J 1999 The economic evaluation of control and eradication of epidemic livestock diseases. Revue scientifique et technique de I' Office International des Epizooties 18 (2) :367-379.

KokateK D and Tyagi K C 1991 Dairy farming practices of tribal cattle owners. Indian Journal of Extension Education, 27, 3 and 4:70-75.

Kukietan U and Chalajan S 2000 An epidemiological investigation of FMD in a dairy farm in Uthaihani Province. Thai Journal of Veterinary Medicine 30 (3) 33-39

Loeffler F 1897  Dtsch.med. Wschr. 1897,  611 und 711  

Mahajan A S and Rautmare 2005 Cost Benefit Analysis of Foot-and-Mouth Disease control programme in Maharashtra State. Compendium of Foot-and-Mouth Diseases. The Blue Cross Book. Published by Intervet India Pvt. Ltd. pp. 66-71

Mersie A, Tafesse B, Getahun F and Teklu W 1992 Losses from foot and mouth diseases in a mixed farming area of Eastern Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health Production 24 (3) 144.

Perry B D W, Kalpravidh P G, Coleman H S, Horst J J, Mcdermott T F, Randolph L J and Gleeson 1999 The economic impact of foot and mouth disease and its control in South-East Asia: a preliminary assessment with special reference to Thailand. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics), 18 (2): 478-497.

Rweyemamu M M and Leforban Y 1999 Foot-and-mouth disease and international development. Advance in Virus Research 53: 111-126.

Saxena R 1994 Economic value of milk loss caused by Foot and Mouth Diseases (FMD) in India. Working paper, Institute of Rural Management, Anand, 60,p. 20.

Shanker H, Sinha DK and Singh B 2004 Epidemiological status on mortality in cattle at organized farm. In Compendium of Abstract of National Symposium on " Latest Approaches and Biotechnological tools for Health Management of Farm and Companion Animals" and XXII Annual Convention of Indian society for Veterinary Medicine, held at IVRI, Izatnagar, during 11-13 February 2004.

Sharma M C and Kumar Mahesh 2003 Infectious Diseases of Buffalo. In: Proceedings of the 4^th Asian Buffalo Congress on "Buffalo for Food Security and Rural employment", held at New Delhi, during February 25-28, 2003. Volume 1:152-168.

Singh P, Sissodia B V S and Kunzru O N 1987 An economic analysis of livestock diseases losses. Indian Veterinary Journal, 64, pp. 227-230.

Singh S N 2003 Foot and Mouth Disease: Present Status and Future strategy for control. In: Proceeding of the 4^th Asian Buffalo Congress on "Buffalo for Food Security and Rural Employment. Lead papers. Volume 1:267-271

Yadav M P 2003 Health barrier to buffalo productivity and their management. In: Proceedings of the 4^th Asian Buffalo Congress on "Buffalo for Food Security and Rural employment, held at New Delhi, during February 25-28, 2003. Volume 1:142-147