2/20/2013

1

RECENT STUDIES OF PARASITICINFECTION OF RUMINANTS IN

BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

Fadjar Satrija

National Zoonosis CenterDepartment of Animal Diseases and Veterinary Public Health,

Faculty of Veterinary MedicineBogor Agricultural University

OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION

• INTRODUCTION

• STUDI ON THE PREVALENCE AND RISK FACTORSOF ENDOPARASITE INFECTIONS IN SMALL HOLDERBEEF CATTLE FARMS OF WEST JAVA PROVINCE

• DEVELOPMENT OF ELISA FOR DETECTION OFLIVER FLUKE (F. GIGANTICA) COPROANTIGEN INRUMINANTS

• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

IINTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTION

Ruminants as an important source ofanimal origin protein in Indonesia Government cattle-Buffalo meat self

sufficient program 2014 Socio-cultural importance of ruminants

for Indonesian people Tropical country : favorable environment

for pathogens including parasite

Y.Y. RidwanRidwan, F., F. SatrijaSatrija EBEB RetnaniRetnani, R., R.TiuriaTiuria, U., U. CahyaningsihCahyaningsih, A., A. BudimanBudiman

Division ofDivision of ParasitologyParasitology and Medical Entomology, Department ofand Medical Entomology, Department of

Animal Diseases an Veterinary Public Health, Faculty ofAnimal Diseases an Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of

Veterinary Medicine, Bogor Agricultural UniversityVeterinary Medicine, Bogor Agricultural University

STUDI ON THE PREVALENCE AND RISK FACTORSOF ENDOPARASITE INFECTIONS IN SMALLHOLDER BEEF CATTLE FARMS OF WEST JAVAPROVINCE

2/20/2013

2

BackgroundBackground

Basic data ofparasite

epidemiology

Diseasecontrol, incl

parasites

Meat selfsufficient

Parasite ObjectivesObjectives

To identify types and prevalence of endoparasites that infect beef cattle on farmsin rural area of West Java Province

To identify risk factors endo parasiteinfection in beef cattle in farms

To identify types and prevalence of endoparasites that infect beef cattle on farmsin rural area of West Java Province

To identify risk factors endo parasiteinfection in beef cattle in farms

Study DesignStudy Design Cross sectional Metode multi stage sampling (Win episcope

2.0) with basic assumptions: Sensitivity 95% Prevalence 20% Level of confidence 95%

Fecal and blood smear samples Questionnaire for farmer (farming

management)

Study DesignStudy Design

Period Study area

KabupatenKabupaten CiamisCiamis

August -

September 2012

KabupatenKabupaten TasikmalayaTasikmalayaKabupatenKabupaten SumedangSumedang

KabupatenKabupaten SubangSubang

KabupatenKabupaten CianjurCianjurKabupatenKabupaten SukabumiSukabumi

2/20/2013

3

No Sampling area(Regency)

Cattlepopulation

Numberof sample

Number offarmer

1 Cianjur 9701 81 34

2 Ciamis 23595 167 77

3 Subang 8261 59 24

4 Sumedang 24130 166 44

5 Sukabumi 11567 81 37

6 Tasikmalaya 38545 273 117

Total sample 827 333

Number of sample and farmer

P Prevalence of parasiteinfectionsPrevalence of parasiteinfections

Prevalence of GI Nematode Infection in CattlPrevalence of GI Nematode Infection in Cattlee Prevalence ofPrevalence of ToxocarosisToxocarosis vitulorumvitulorum in Cattlin Cattlee

27%

10%

21%

42%

Sapi umur (>3 th) Sapi umur (>1-3 th)Sapi umur (6-12 th) Sapi umur (0-6 bln)

2/20/2013

4

Prevalence ofPrevalence of CestodosisCestodosis dandan TrematodosisTrematodosis in Cattlein Cattle

0 1.3 0 2.5 1.2 0 0.6

25.920.5

15.3

42.1

22.9

35.629.1

47.955.1

21.1

51.3

20.3

39.7 39.3

Monezia Fasciola Parampistomum

Prevalence of blood parasite infections inPrevalence of blood parasite infections incattlecattle

Ciamis Cianjur Subang Sukabumi Sumedang Tasikmalaya Provinsi

26 23

3540

29 30 3022

30

40

70

21

4335

17

44

36

68

28

52

40

0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Anaplasma Babesia Theileria Trypanosoma

16.9 18.6 16.523.7

57.0

2.9

16.9

Coccidiosis

Prevalence of coccidiosis in cattlePrevalence of coccidiosis in cattle Prevalence of cryptosporidiosisPrevalence of cryptosporidiosis

9.09

14.29 15.22

8.54

0 0

10.53

2/20/2013

5

Farm ManagementFarm ManagementMCattle rearing systemCattle rearing system

Kategori N %

Method ofrearingcattle

Kept in barn (Zero grazing) 143 46.6Grazing during day time and barned inthe night

107 34.9

Grazing all the time 57 18.6

GrazingFrequency

Every day 130 79.3A number of time within a week 18 11.0A number of time within a month 7 4.3Others 9 5.5

Place ofGrazing

Paddy field (after harvest) 136 84.0Estate area (coconut, rubber estate) 48 29.6Forest 16 9.9Common grazing area 24 14.8Others 14 8.6

Cattle barnCattle barnN %

Barn floor

Concrete 76 30.0

Soil 155 61.3

Wood 22 8.7

Barn cleaningNot regular 3 1.2

Regular 249 98.8

Frequency ofbarn cleaning

Every day 232 92.4One a week 11 4.4Couple days in a week 2 0.8No regular schedule 6 2.4

AbortionAbortionN %

Abortion cases with the last one yearNo 298 94.9Yes 16 5.1

Occurrence of abortion case in the herdAlways 0 0Seldom 1 6.3Rare 14 87.5Not known 1 6.3

2/20/2013

6

Calves HealthCalves HealthN %

Occurrence ofsickness No 263 87.1

Yes 39 12.9

Symptoms ofsickness

Diarrhea 29 74.4Infeksi tali pusar 2 5.1Worm expulsion from rectum 3 7.7Constipation 1 2.6Nafsu makan turun 5 12.8Emaciation 10 25.6Dull hair 5 12.8Others 8 20.5

Calves MortalityCalves Mortality

N %

Occurrence of calves mortalityNo 279 98.2Yes 5 1.8

Clinical signs prior to mortalityDiarrhea 4 80loss of appetite 2 40Emaciated 2 40Dull hair 2 40

AnthelminticsN

%Farmer

Anthelmintic usageNo 76 24.8%Yes 230 75.2%

Type of anthelminticStandarized herbalmedicine (Jamu)

19 8.3%

Herbal medicine 3 1.3%Commercial drug 229 99.6%Others 11 4.8%

Source of anthelminticLivestock Service 88 41.7%Vet drug TS 1 0.5%Purchase of its own 122 57.8%

Frequency ofanthelmintic treatment

1 x / year 29 12.9%2 x / year 46 20.4%3 x / year 27 12.0%4 x / year 28 12.4%Clinical cases 46 20.4%Post partus 49 21.8%

Risk factors relating to blood parasiteRisk factors relating to blood parasiteinfectionsinfections

Cattle rearing method (Grazing cattle) Frequency of grazing (Every day, weekly) Place of grazing (estate area, post harvest

paddy field)

Presence of flies and tick (often found)

Control of flies and tick (manualremoval, no treatment)

2/20/2013

7

Rearing method (Grazing cattle) Frequency of grazing (all time grazing) Place for grazing (post harvest paddy field,

estate area) Part of straw for feeding (all part, ¾ lower) Grass for feeding (fresh grass) Source of grass (common grazing land) Source of water (river) Frequency of anthelmintic treatment (only

when animal sick)

Risk factors relating to TrematodesinfectionsRisk factors relating to Trematodesinfections

Rearing method (Grazing cattle) Frequency of grazing (Every day) Place of grazing (common grazing land) Part of straw for feeding (¾ lower) Source of grass (common grazing land) Frequency of anthelmintic treatment

(only when animal sick)

Risk factors relating toGastrointestinal Nematode infectionsRisk factors relating toGastrointestinal Nematode infections

Rearing method (Grazing all time)

Place of grazing (common grazing land) Barn floor (soil, wood) Frequency of barn cleaning (1x/week)

Risk factors relating to CoccidiainfectionsRisk factors relating to Coccidiainfections DEVELOPMENT OF ELISA FOR DETECTION OF

LIVER FLUKE (F. GIGANTICA) COPROANTIGENIN RUMINANTS

F. Satrija, S. Murtini, Y. Ridwan

Department of Animal Diseases anVeterinary Public Health, Faculty ofVeterinary Medicine, Bogor AgriculturalUniversity

2/20/2013

8

Background• Fasciolosis has been

known as one of mosteconomicallyimportant parasite ofruminants in Indonesia

• Potential zoonosis ?

• Needs for earlydetection tools foreffective control

Objective

• To develop ELISA for detection ofcoproantigen as a diagnostic tool for earlydetection of Fasciola gigantica infection

Study Design

Specificity and sensitivity test of ELISA

Development of ELISA

Production of polyclonal antibody (IgY and Ig G) anti-ES

Isolation and characterization ofexcretory/secretory (ES) protein from F.

gigantica

2/20/2013

9

Profile of ES protein antigen

104

90

56

30

148

98

64

503622

Marker ES

ELISA design

Sandwich ELISA• Capture antibody – IgY

anti-ES• Antigen: fecal

suspension• Detection antibody –

IgG anti-ES• Secondary antibody

goat anti rabbit IgG –HRP conjugated

• Subtrate (TMB)

Comparison between ELISA results andworm counting (gold standard)

Post mortem

ELISAresult

Positive Negative Total

Positive 7 (a) 0 (b) 7

Negative 1 (c) 29 (d) 30

Total 8 29 37

Sensitivity a/a+c x 100% 87,5 %

Specificity d/b+d x 100% 100 %

2/20/2013

10

Trial using field samples

Result of microscopic observation

ResultofELISA

Positive Negative Total

Positive 9 (a) 3 (b) 12

Negative 6 (c) 26 (d) 32

Total 15 29 44

Aknowledgments

• West Java Province Livestock Service

• Competitive Research Grant, DirectorateGeneral of Higher Education, Ministry ofEducation & Culture, GOI

• Faculty of Animal Science, IPB

Thank you very muchfor your attention