↓ Skip to main content

Important knowledge gaps among pastoralists on causes and treatment of udder health problems in livestock in southern Ethiopia: results of qualitative investigation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Important knowledge gaps among pastoralists on causes and treatment of udder health problems in livestock in southern Ethiopia: results of qualitative investigation
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12917-017-1222-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kebede Amenu, Barbara Szonyi, Delia Grace, Barbara Wieland

Abstract

Ethiopia has high prevalences of udder health problems including clinical and subclinical mastitis across production systems in different livestock species. Previous studies on udder health problems have largely focused on identification of mastitis causing microbial pathogens and associated risk factors. However, relatively little is known about the knowledge and beliefs of livestock keepers regarding udder health problems. An understanding of the beliefs on the other hand would facilitate effective communication between livestock keepers and animal health professionals. Therefore, this study aimed at exploring the knowledge and belief surrounding the causes, clinical signs and treatments for udder health problems in (agro-) pastoral communities in southern Ethiopia using qualitative investigation. The result showed that udder health problem, locally known as 'dhukkuba muchaa', which translates to 'disease of teats', was classified into three main types: (1) tick infestation (dirandisa), (2) swelling of udder often with pus discharge (nyaqarsa) and (3) acute mastitis caused by evil eye (buda) with 'bloody milk'. Tick infestation was perceived to directly cause mechanical damage to udder tissue or to resulting in swelling leading to nyaqarsa. Our analysis also revealed the strong misperception that acute and severe swelling of udder was caused by evil eye. According to the pastoralists, cows with large udders in the late pregnancy are prone to evil eye infliction upon giving birth. The pastoralists often treat udder health problems by combining both modern and traditional methods. Removal of ticks by hand and acarcide application were the preferred methods for limiting tick infestation while swelling and evil eye cases were treated with antibiotics (e.g. oxytetracycline). The study also revealed that specific herbs, only known by the herbalists, were used for traditional treatment of udder health. Although this information could not be divulged at the time, it should form the subject of further investigation. Traditional treatment for evil eye was often administered through nostrils, raising questions about its effectiveness. The narration given by the pastoralists in associating tick infestation with udder health problems was compatible with existing scientific evidences. In this respect, such local knowledge can be better utilized for the educational messages targeting control and management of tick infestation in livestock. However, the misperception of causes for acute udder swelling as evil eye can be problematic as far as the application of appropriate treatment and management of the problem is concerned. The misperception can significantly impact the welfare of animals and highlights the need for capacity building of the pastoralists on the causes and treatment of udder health problems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 18%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Professor 4 4%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 39 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 15%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 13 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 40 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 September 2019.
All research outputs
#13,220,095
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#850
of 3,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,910
of 327,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#24
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,065 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.