Serological investigation of foot and mouth disease in cattle in East Bale Zone, Ethiopia.

Serological investigation of foot and mouth disease in cattle in East Bale Zone, Ethiopia - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice BMC Vet Res . 2026 Apr 20;22:325. doi: 10.1186/s12917-026-05496-7 Serological investigation of foot and mouth disease in cattle in East Bale Zone, Ethiopia Firaol Tariku Geleto 1, 2 , Getachew Mulatu Dilba 1, ✉ , Ayelech Muluneh 3 , Teferi Benti 3 , Tegegn Dilbato Dinbiso 1 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 School of Veterinary Medicine, Guder Mamo Mezemir Campus, Ambo University, P. O. Box: 19, Ambo, Oromia Ethiopia 2 West Shewa Zone, Nono District Agriculture Office, Silk-Amba, Oromia, Ethiopia 3 Animal Health Institute, P.O. Box 04, Sebeta, Oromia Ethiopia ✉ Corresponding author. Received 2026 Jan 1; Accepted 2026 Apr 14; Collection date 2026. © The Author(s) 2026 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ . PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13231565  PMID: 42010567 Abstract Background Foot and mouth disease (FMD) is a highly contagious viral disease affecting cloven-hooved animals, including cattle, that reduces production and causes significant economic losses. Despite its importance, limited information about the epidemiology of FMD in East Bale Zone, Ethiopia. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted from December 2024 to June 2025 to estimate the seroprevalence of FMD, identify circulating serotypes, evaluate associated risk factors, and assess the community’s knowledge and perceptions of farmers regarding the disease. A total of 384 blood samples were randomly collected from cattle and screened for antibodies against FMDV-NSP using the 3ABC ELISA ID screen competition kit (ID-VET, Grabels, France). Twenty-two individual animal serum samples with strongly positive (competition percentage value < 20%) were further examined to determine the circulating FMDV serotypes using a solid-phase competitive ELISA (SPCE) commercially available kit (IZSLER, Brescia, Italy). In addition, a questionnaire survey was administered to 110 livestock owners to assess their knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward FMD. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to identify significant associations with FMD seropositivity. Results An overall seroprevalence of 27.08% (95% CI: 22.88–31.74) was recorded. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed a significant association between seroprevalence and age, body condition, and herding practice. Adults (> 3 years) were 2.33 times more likely to be seropositive than younger cattle (OR = 2.33, 95% CI = 1.401–3.894; P = 0.001), and cattle with poor body condition had significantly higher seropositivity than those in good condition (OR = 2.32, 95% CI = 1.220–4.440; P = 0.010). Cattle kept with sheep and goats were 2.9 times more likely to be seropositive than cattle kept alone (OR = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.178–7.111; P = 0.020). The dominant circulating serotypes were SAT-2 (22.72%), O (18.18%), and SAT-1 (4.54%). Furthermore, mixed serotypes A and SAT-2, O and SAT-2, O, SAT-2 and SAT-1, and serotypes O, SAT-1, and SAT-2 were observed. Although 84.6% of respondents recognized FMD by its local name, “ Okkolchiisaa ,” their understanding of disease transmission and prevention practices was limited. Conclusion The current investigation revealed that exposure to FMDV is widespread in East Bale Zone, with circulating serotypes O, SAT-1, SAT-2, and mixed serotypes. Therefore, the implementation of targeted trivalent vaccination and enhanced farmer education on FMD transmission and prevention is essential for effective disease management. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12917-026-05496-7. Keywords: Cattle, Foot and Mouth Disease, Sero-prevalence, Serotyping, Ethiopia Introduction Foot and mouth disease (FMD) is caused by the Foot and mouth disease virus (FMDV), which belongs to the genus Aphthovirus and family Picornaviridae . There are seven different serotypes of the virus: A, O, C, Asia 1, South African Territories (SAT) 1, SAT 2, and SAT 3. Since each serotype has several biotypes and topotypes, infection with one serotype does not protect against others [ 1 ]. In Africa, FMDV serotypes O and A are highly prevalent [ 2 ]. While in Ethiopia, FMDV serotypes O, A, C, SAT-1, and SAT-2 were reported [ 3 – 5 ]. The significant impact of FMD stems from its rapid spread, leading to long-term productivity losses and severe international trade restrictions [ 6 ]. The disease is particularly concerning in poorer and developing countries, as it is highly endemic in most sub-Saharan African nations, further exacerbating socio-economic challenges in the farming sector [ 7 ]. In Ethiopia, FMD is endemic and occurs throughout the country; however, its prevalence varies considerably among different farming systems and agroecological zones (1, 9). Previous seroprevalence studies conducted in Ethiopia have reported a wide range of FMD prevalence in cattle, from 4.8% to 72.1% (10–14). These variable FMD seroprevalence reports were due to a sample size difference, production system (extensive, semi-intensive, and intensive), host factors (breed, age, sex, herd size, etc.), mixed species herds, geographical and agroecological variation of the study, study design, laboratory techniques, estimation of seroprevalence at the animal level, and herd level. Also, other area studies indicated that the overall pooled samples 42.43%, and individual sample cattle 52%, Bufalo 74%, and pigs 44% FMD prevalence in Asian countries was reported [ 8 ], East African countries from 2014 to 2024, pooled sample 43%, and individual sample cattle 9%-80%, and small ruminants 45% prevalence of FMD [ 9 ]. These reports indicated that the distribution and current transmission of FMD in developing countries like Africa and Asia are increasing, which requires urgent intervention. The transmission of FMDV occurs through several primary routes. Direct transmission involves contact between susceptible and infected animals, while indirect routes happen when susceptible animals come into contact with contaminated feed or via transportation of the FMDV on inanimate objects like vehicles and contaminated equipment. Additionally, unregulated international movements of infected cattle and their derivatives greatly increase the spread of the disease [ 10 ]. Wildlife also plays an important role, acting as maintenance or bridge hosts, especially when livestock and wildlife share grazing and watering areas, and fences are broken down [ 11 , 12 ]. Ecological and seasonal factors greatly affect the likelihood of FMD outbreaks. Outbreaks are especially common during the dry season, when resources like pasture and water are limited, forcing animals into closer contact. Under these conditions, the FMDV can thrive more effectively, circulating in the environment and raising the overall risk of infection and disease spread [ 11 , 13 ]. Stamping out policies in FMD-free areas; early, accurate, and rapid detection of the disease in endemic areas are crucial for effective prevention, control, and eradication of FMD. The most broadly used techniques for efficient and rapid diagnosis include reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in parallel with conventional assays such as isolation, virus neutralization test (VNT), and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [ 14 , 15 ]. Vaccination with the corresponding vaccine, animal movement control, outbreak investigation, serological surveillance, and killing of susceptible or infected animals are the methods of control measures in FMD. However, antibodies generated by infection or vaccination against one serotype do not protect against others, necessitating tailored vaccine selection based on circulating viral types and subtypes [ 16 ]. Foot and mouth disease (FMD) is one of the major livestock diseases that has profound socio-economic implications in developing countries like Ethiopia, where the livelihood of most people depends directly on livestock. In Ethiopia, FMD is consistently ranked as the most economically significant viral disease and is among the top five livestock diseases [ 17 ]. This ranking is due to its impact on international trade in livestock and animal products. The disease also causes significant effects on the livelihoods of local farmers due to reduced productivity, food security, and income losses [ 18 ]. Despite its importance, the prevention and control of FMD remain major challenges in Ethiopia. These challenges include the widespread occurrence of multiple viral serotypes and subtypes, the presence of various virus hosts throughout the country, uncontrolled livestock movement, and the lack of sufficient, effective, and affordable FMD vaccine in the country. Moreover, FAO and WOAH emphasize the need for a long-term, progressive, risk-based control strategy to reduce the burden of FMD in endemic countries such as Ethiopia [ 19 , 20 ]. Livestock rearing is the primary livelihood activity in the East Bale zone, characterized by free grazing (common grazing), a common watering source, low attention to vaccination, and free movement of animals without certification (at commercial markets), as the area serves as a live animal export hub. These are the main factors that could increase the distribution and the risk of FMD transmission. Successful livestock disease prevention and control programs through mass vaccination require not only technical and economic feasibility but also the motivation of the farmers and communities to participate in the implementation of the programs. Therefore, understanding their knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to FMD is essential for designing effective, community-based disease management strategies [ 21 ]. Understanding the risk factors and community perception of the disease is critical for the formulation of appropriate control strategies. Previous studies in Ethiopia mainly focused on the epidemiology of FMD, with limited integration of farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding the disease and its management. Livestock owners frequently have valuable indigenous knowledge about animal health. This presents an opportunity to combine community knowledge with veterinary service delivery systems to solve current livestock health issues. Assessing livestock keepers’ knowledge and practices related to FMD, as well as their willingness to adopt control measures, is therefore crucial for the development of effective disease control programs. Although Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) is a significant livestock health concern, information on its seroprevalence, associated risk factors, and the community’s knowledge and perception of the disease in the East Bale Zone is limited. Assessing FMD seroprevalence, identifying relevant risk factors, and understanding the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of livestock owners in the area are essential for developing effective, practical, and community-acceptable disease management strategies. Therefore, the objectives of the current study were: To estimate the seroprevalence of foot and mouth disease virus in cattle in selected districts of East Bale Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. To assess the associated risk factors of foot and mouth disease virus in selected districts of East Bale, Oromia, Ethiopia. To identify serotypes of the foot and mouth disease virus circulating in the study area. To assess knowledge, attitudes, and practices of the community about foot and mouth disease in the study areas. Materials and methods Description of the study areas The study was conducted in the East Bale zone of Oromia Region, southeastern Ethiopia. The zone, located approximately 563 km from Addis Ababa, is situated geographically between 7°8′N and 40°42′E (Fig. 1 ) and is predominantly lowland and pastoral, with livestock serving as a major source of livelihood. Livestock production and marketing are the main assets of the community. Geographically, the East Bale Zone shares borders with the Somali region to the east and southeast, the Bale Zone to the west and southwest, the Arsi Zone to the northeast, and West Hararge and East Hararge to the northeast. The agroecology of the zone is marked by two distinct seasons: the long rainy season, which extends from June to early October, and the short rainy season, between late February and early April. In these Districts, there are 328,928 cattle, 44,191 sheep, and 507,682 goats. The study selected the East Bale zone for serological investigation of FMD in cattle, based on the relative cattle population, high movement of animals within and between the districts, accessibility, and local ecology, such as dry-season migration for searching gazing and watering, agropastoral system, and wildlife contact from National Park of Bale Mountain expects favor the transmission the FMD in the study area. Epidemiologically, there is no well-documented history of an outbreak and scarce information about the FMD status in the East Bale Zone; however, neighboring pastoral zones have shown high seroprevalence and recent outbreak reports [ 22 , 23 ]. Fig. 1. Open in a new tab Map of Ethiopia, Oromia, East Bale Zone showing the location of the study areas: Ginir, Dawe, Kachen, and Rayitu Districts. Source: (Ark GIS 10.8, 2025) Study design and population A cross-sectional study was conducted from December 2024 to June 2025. The study population comprised cattle of both sexes older than six months, reared under an extensive management system in the Dawe Kachen, Rayitu, and Ginir districts. Only cattle with no history of FMD vaccination from selected peasant associations were included. Cattle were kept with either small ruminants (animal composition) or only cattle, without mixing with other livestock species. Calves younger than six months and vaccinated cattle were excluded to minimize confounding. A group of ages was classified as young (6 months to 3 years) and adult (> 3 years) based on owner information and when reliable owner information was unavailable or unreliable, age determination was confirmed by dentition rules that observation of eruption and wear of lower incisor replacement of milk teeth with permanent teeth; 2 teeth (18–24 months), 4 teeth (24–36), 6–8 teeth (> 36 months), as in FSI Service [ 24 ]. The body condition was scored as poor, medium, or good, according to Mishra et al. [ 25 ]. Sampling method and sample size determination The study districts, Dawe Kachen, Rayitu, and Ginir, were purposively selected based on cattle population density, cross-border animal movement patterns, and reports of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks. Within these districts, a total of ten Peasant Associations (PAs) were also selected purposively, comprising four from Dawe Kachen, three from Rayitu, and three from Ginir. To ensure representativeness and minimize selection bias at the animal level, a simple random sampling technique was subsequently applied to select the study animals within the identified PAs. The study areas (Dawe Kachen, Rayitu, and Ginir) were selected conveniently based on cattle population, high animal movement near the borders, and accessibility. Within each district, peasant associations (PAs) were selected proportionally based on cattle population size, accessibility, and availability of infrastructure. In total, 10 PAs were chosen from the three study districts (four from the Dawe Kachen, three from the Rayitu, and three from the Ginir). From each selected PA, household herds and individual animals (1 to 4 per herd) were randomly selected using a simple random sampling technique. The total sample size was calculated using the standard formula provided by Thrusfield et al. [ 26 ]. The required sample size for the present study was calculated considering the expected FMD seroprevalence of 21.59% in cattle, as reported by a previous study [ 27 ]. The sample size required for this study was determined by applying the formula given by [ 26 ] to estimate FMD seroprevalence. The calculation was based on a previously reported FMD seroprevalence of 21.59% in cattle from the Bale Zone [ 27 ]. Where, n = required sample size; Z= value for 95% confidence level (1.96); Pexp= expected prevalence (21.59%); d= desired absolute precision (0.05). Thus, the minimum sample size required using given an expected prevalence 21.59%, 95% confidence interval, and absolute precision of 5%, was 260. However, the total sample size was increased to 384 to increase the precision of the prevalence estimate. The number of research animal samples was increased to 384 to increase the precision of the prevalence estimate. Taking into account variation in cattle population sizes among the three selected districts and across the ten Peasant Associations (PAs), proportional allocation was applied to distribute the total sample size according to the relative cattle population in each district and PA. Specifically, the number of animals to be sampled from each unit was determined by calculating its share of the total cattle population and allocating samples accordingly. As a result, 126, 108, and 150 animals were sampled from Dawe Kachen, Rayitu, and Ginir districts, respectively. Due to the difference in population numbers in the selected three districts and even within 10 PAs, the sample size was allocated proportionally based on cattle population numbers. As a result, 126, 108, and 150 animals were sampled from Dawe Kachen, Rayitu, and Ginir districts, respectively. Concurrent with blood sample collection, a questionnaire survey was administered to assess the perception of farmers toward FMD in the study area. Concurrent with the collection of blood samples, cattle owners were selected through a simple random method to participate in a questionnaire survey. The total sample size for this survey was calculated using the formula described by Arsham (2007) [ 28 ]. Using the formula provided by Arsham, the total sample size for this survey was determined to be as follows: where N = sample size and SE are the standard error (5%). To account for a 10% non-response rate, a total of 110 farmers were planned to be included in this study; however, 105 informants voluntarily participated in the study. Data collection Questionnaire survey Data were collected through face-to-face interviews using semi-structured questionnaires in the local language (Afan Oromo) to ensure clarity and accuracy of responses. The questionnaire captured socio-demographic characteristics of respondents, including age, sex, educational status, and primary livelihood. It also assessed farmers’ knowledge of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), particularly recognition of its clinical signs. Furthermore, information was obtained on major livestock production constraints in the study area, with specific emphasis on FMD and potential epidemiological risk factors. These included seasonality of disease occurrence, patterns of livestock movement, contact with animals or herds from different peasant associations or districts at communal grazing and watering points, animal origin (born on-farm or introduced from other areas), and livestock market activities within peasant associations or villages. Additionally, respondents were asked about the practices undertaken when FMD cases were observed in their herds. A total of 105 cattle owners participated in the survey. Detailed information regarding the questionnaire format and content is provided in the supplementary materials (supplementary file). Sample collection Blood samples were collected from the jugular vein of each animal into sterile 10-ml Vacutainer tubes using blood collection needles. Following sample collection, vacutainer tubes were labeled with a unique identification (identification codes, district, kebele, sex, and age). Blood samples were transported to the local veterinary laboratory and stored at a slant position overnight at room temperature to allow clotting and separation of the serum from the clot. The serum was transferred into sterile cryovials labeled with corresponding identification codes and stored at -20 °C for the district veterinary clinic until the sampling of the study area was completed. Finally, at the end of each sampling, serum samples were transported in an icebox containing ice packs to the Animal Health Institute (AHI), Sebeta, and stored at -20 °C until tested. Serological investigation 3ABC ELISA test Briefly, the ELISA serology was performed at the Animal Health Institution (AHI) laboratory using a commercially available ELISA kit, the ID Screen ® FMDV non-structural proteins 3ABC ELISA ID screen competition kit (ID-VET, Grabels, France), and the protocol was carried out stepwise as per the manufacturer’s manual. This test detects only antibodies produced against non-structural proteins of the virus and can thus distinguish vaccinated animals from infected animals. The quantification of antibodies was done using a spectrophotometer with a wavelength of 450 nm reader in terms of optical density (OD). Validation and interpretation of the results were based on the mean value of the negative control OD, which was greater than 0.7, and the mean value of the positive control OD was less than 30% of the OD NC . Each sample’s interpretation was based on the competition proportion (S/N%): -. S/N% values less than or equal to 50% were considered positive samples, whereas S/N% values greater than 50% were considered negative samples. FMDV serotyping: solid-phase competition ELISA FMDV Serotyping was performed on 22 individual serum samples, showing strongly positive serum samples, with the 3ABC ELISA results (competition percentage value < 20%). These samples were then analyzed using solid-phase competitive ELISA (SPCE) with a commercially available diagnostic kit (IZSLER, Brescia, Italy) (OIE, 2017). The testing procedures followed the manufacturer’s instructions. The Solid-Phase Competitive ELISA (SPCE) was performed using 96-well microplates pre-coated with serotype-specific Foot and Mouth Disease Virus (FMDV) antigens (O, A, SAT1, and SAT2) and corresponding monoclonal antibodies for antigen capture. Serum samples were appropriately diluted and dispensed into the antigen-coated wells, followed by the addition of a peroxidase-conjugated detection antibody. After incubation and subsequent washing steps to remove unbound components, a chromogenic substrate solution was added, and the plates were incubated in the dark to allow color development. The enzymatic reaction was terminated using a stop solution, and optical density (OD) values were measured at 450 nm using a microplate reader. The percentage of inhibition of positive control and test sera was used to calculate the results. If the percentage of inhibition (PI) is ≥ 70% at the 1/10 dilution (positive), while the percentage of inhibition (PI) is < 70% at the 1/10 dilution (negative). Data management and analysis Data from the questionnaire survey and collected serum samples were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet 2019, coded, filtered, and subsequently imported into STATA (version 14.2) for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data, and individual animal seroprevalence was calculated as the proportion of positive animals relative to the total number tested. Univariable logistic regression was performed to assess the association between seropositivity and potential risk factors, including district, altitude, age, sex, body condition, herd size, animal origin, and herd composition. Variables with a correlation coefficient < 0.6 and a p-value < 0.25 in the univariable analysis were included in the multivariable logistic regression model to avoid collinearity. The strength of association between risk factors and FMD seropositivity was expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and statistical significance was defined at P < 0.05. Model fit for the logistic regression was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Associations between categorical variables from the questionnaire survey were evaluated using the chi-square (χ²) test. Results Overall seroprevalence of foot and mouth disease in cattle From a total of 384 cattle sera samples tested, 27.08% (95% CI = 22.88–31.74) were positive for antibodies against NSP of the FMD virus. Comparatively, the higher seroprevalence (32%, 95% CI = 25.06–39.83) was recorded in the Ginir district (Table 1 ). Table 1. Seroprevalence of FMD in cattle in the study area District No. of tested No. of positive Prevalence (%) 95% CI Dawe Kachen 126 31 24.60 17.91–32.80 Rayitu 108 25 23.15 16.20-31.94 Ginir 150 48 32 25.06–39.83 Total 384 104 27.08 22.88–31.74 Open in a new tab FMD seropositivity and associated risk factors in cattle Univariable logistic regression analysis of FMD seropositivity at the district level and assessment of associated risk factors indicated that age ( P = 0.000), body condition ( P = 0.001), and herding practice ( P = 0.008) were significantly associated with FMD seroprevalence ( P < 0.05). At univariable logistic regression, risk factors like district, age, body condition, introduced new cattle, herd size, and herding practice showed P < 0.25 and were forwarded for multivariable logistic regression (Table 2 ). Table 2. Potential risk factors of FMD at univariable logistic regression Variable Categories No. of tested Prevalence (%) OR (95% CI) P -value District Dawe Kachen 126 31(24.60) * Rayitu 108 25(23.15) 0.92(0.50–1.68) 0.795 Ginnir 150 48(32) 1.44(0.84–2.45) 0.177 Altitude > 1500 m.a.s.l 91 28(30.77) * < 1500 m.a.s.l 294 76(25.85) 0.78(0.47–1.32) 0.366 Age Young 163 27(16.56) * Adult 221 77(34.84) 2.69(1.63–4.42) 0.000 Sex Female 206 52(25.24) * Male 178 52(29.21) 1.22(0.77–1.91) 0.383 Body Good 279 67(24.01) * Condition Medium 56 14(25.00) 1.05(0.54–2.04) 0.875 Poor 49 23(46.94) 2.79(1.49–5.22) 0.001 Introduced new cattle Yes 52 18(34.62) 1.51(0.81–2.82) 0.191 No 332 86(25.90) * Herd size < 10 Cattle 219 52(23.74) * > 10 Cattle 165 52(31.52) 1.47(0.93–2.32) 0.091 Herding Cattle only 53 6(11.32) * Practice Cattle with shoat 331 98(29.61) 3.29(1.36–7.95) 0.008 Open in a new tab No. of tested Number of samples tested, No. of positive Number of samples positive, OR Odds ratio, CI Confidence interval, * Reference group In multivariable logistic regression analysis, age, body condition, and herding practice were predictive factors for FMD seropositivity ( P < 0.05). Adult cattle (> 3 years) had a higher seroprevalence than young cattle (< 3 years), with adults 2.3 times more likely to be seropositive (95% CI = 1.63–4.42). Cattle with poor body condition had higher seroprevalence than cattle with good body condition, and the odds of FMD are 2.32 times higher in animals with poor body condition than in animals with good body condition. Cattle kept together with sheep and goats were 2.9 times more likely to be seropositive than cattle kept alone (Table 3 ). Table 3. Potential risk factors of FMD at Multivariable logistic regression Variables Categories Prevalence (%) OR (95% CI) P -value Age Young 16.56 * Adult 34.84 2.33 (1.401–3.894) 0.001 Good 24.01 * BCS Medium 25.00 1.12 (0.559–2.191) 0.770 Poor 46.94 2.32 (1.220–4.440) 0.010 Herding Practice Cattle only 11.32 * Cattle with shoat 29.61 2.9 (1.178–7.111) 0.020 Open in a new tab BCS Body condition score, CI Confidence interval, OR Odds ratio, *Reference group The overall FMD seroprevalence results parameters influence the occurrence of FMD in the study area, as depicted in Fig. 2 . Fig. 2. Open in a new tab Seroprevalence result parameters of FMD in the study area FMDV serotyping A total of 22 strongly positive sera samples were analyzed using the FMDV SPC-ELISA, which revealed the presence of serotypes O, SAT 1, and SAT 2. The comparison of the proportion of FMDV serotypes circulating in the study areas showed that serotypes SAT-2 (22.72%), followed by serotypes O (18.18%) and SAT-1 (4.54%), were the most prevalent serotypes circulating in the study areas. In this study, mixed virus serotypes were also recorded (Fig. 3 ). Fig. 3. Open in a new tab FMDV serotypes identified and their distributions in the study areas Farmers’ knowledge and practice toward FMD All participants (100%) managed their cattle in the extensive management system. Among the 105 livestock owners surveyed, only 17/105 (16.19%) kept cattle only, while the majority (83.81%) reported that their cattle shared pasture with sheep and goats. According to 96.19% of respondents, their herds came in contact with other animals or herds at the watering point and grazing land (Table 4 ). According to a proportion of 97.14% of respondents, there was free movement of animals from different peasant associations or districts in search of feed and water, trade markets, and replacement herds; 29.52% of respondents replied that there was the existence of a livestock market in PA or a nearby village. Table 4. Respondents’ knowledge of FMD and its practice related to risk factors Characteristics Categories Frequency Percentage (%) Contact with other herds Yes 101 96.19 No 4 3.81 Contact area with another herd Grazing land - - watering area 2 1.98 Both 103 98.02 Share pasture with shoats Yes 88 83.81 No 17 16.19 Introduced new cattle into the herd, causing infection Yes 24 22.86 No 81 77.14 FMD knowledge Yes 89 84.76 No 16 15.24 Occurrence of FMD within 12 months No 89/89 100.00 Vaccinate their animals for FMD. No 89/89 100.00 Agree with free animal movement Yes 102 97.14 No 3 2.86 Feed and water shortage Yes 92 87.6 No 13 12.38 Inadequate veterinary service Yes 44 41.91 No 61 58.09 The existence of livestock marketing as a source of infection Yes 31 29.52 No 74 70.48 Open in a new tab The survey showed that 84.7% (89/105) of the farmers knew about FMD and were familiar with its local name, “ Okkolchiisa. ” However, all interviewed cattle owners replied that their cattle had not been vaccinated against FMD. The main reasons the participants mentioned were the lack of vaccination services, specifically FMD vaccination programs in the study area limited and irregular, which explained why all sampled cattle were unvaccinated for FMD. Association between sociodemographic factors and farmers’ knowledge In this study, the association between knowledge and sociodemographic data was also assessed. All respondents in the study areas (Dawe Kachen = 86.05%, Rayitu = 85.71%, and Ginir = 82.35%) had a comparable understanding of FMD. The analysis of the association between FMD knowledge and gender revealed no significant difference. However, the age and educational level of the respondents showed a significant association ( p < 0.05) (Table 5 ). Table 5. Chi-square test results of respondents’ sociodemographic data with FMD knowledge in the study area Characteristics Categories FMD knowledge Percentage % χ 2 p -value Study location Dawe Kachen 86.05 0.23 0.893 Rayitu 85.71 Ginir 82.35 Age of respondents 18–30 years 63.64 31–50 years 93.75 > 50 years 100.00 15.88 0.001 Sex of respondents Male 87.21 2.74 0.138 Female 73.68 Education Illiterate 76.36 Read and write 93.75 Primary 100.00 Secondary and above 100.00 9.68 0.021 Open in a new tab Respondents who were familiar with FMD were asked to indicate the typical symptoms of the disease (Fig. 4 ). Fig. 4. Open in a new tab Respondent’s knowledge about symptoms of FMD Farmers’ practices toward foot and mouth disease prevention measures In this study, cattle owners were asked what steps they took when FMD cases occurred. The majority (47%) responded that traditional treatments like using honey, grinding the leaf of Calpurinia aurea ( Ceekkataa ), and washing the infected part with warm water with iodine salt. In addition, 27% use modern treatment, and 3% isolate and keep the animal around the farm area. Unexpectedly, despite being aware of FMD, 23% of livestock owners did not implement any disease prevention measures (Fig. 5 ). The traditional treatment of FMD practices reflects indigenous knowledge and practical adaptations to reduce the illness, but there is no evidence that these treatments control the spread of FMD. Fig. 5. Open in a new tab The study area practice of respondents toward the prevention method of FMD Discussion The present study revealed that the FMD seroprevalence of 27.08% was recorded in cattle in the East Bale Zone of the Oromia regional state. This finding was aligned with previous research carried out in other regions of Ethiopia. Notably, in the Borena and Guji zones, the central Tigray zone, and the Gamo zone, the reported prevalence was 24.6% [ 29 ], 26.6% [ 30 ], and 26.82% [ 31 ], respectively. However, this finding was lower than reports from Central Ethiopia (56%) [ 17 ], Tigray’s Eastern Zone (41.5%) [ 30 ], and West Shewa Zone (40.4%) [ 32 ]. On the other hand, the lowest seroprevalence positivity was reported in southern Ethiopia (9.5%) [ 33 ], with 6.9% [ 34 ] and 5.9% [ 35 ] in the Gamo Gofa and Sidama zones, 12.05% and 8.18%, respectively, in the Bench Maji zone, and the South Omo Zone. Additionally, a recent report from the Bale zone near East Bale zone, Ethiopia, overall seroprevalence from 962 total sera samples, the seroprevalence of FMD was 20.8%, with the district level variation ranging from 13 to 35.2%, which indicates heterogeneous distributions of the disease [ 23 ]. When the current overall finding was compared with other countries, Kenya 83.8% from the apparent animal level [ 36 ], Eritrea 39% [ 37 ], 55.9% in Nigeria from sedentary cattle [ 38 ], Nepal 37.65% [ 39 ], Pakistan 57% [ 40 ], Afghanistan 54.1% [ 41 ], and Cambodia 42.3% [ 42 ]. The reasons for the variation might be due to vaccination coverage, sample size during the investigation period, differences in livestock management systems, agroecological conditions, unrestricted movement of cloven-hoofed animals, communal grazing and watering points, unequal vaccine distribution, and veterinary service availability [ 43 ]. This study showed significant variation in the seropositivity of FMD among age groups, with the adult age group exhibiting a higher prevalence (34.84%) than the young group (16.56%) (OR = 2.69; P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis indicated that the odds of FMD seroprevalence in adults were 2.33 times greater than in young cattle. This study finding was in line with previous studies by Gizaw et al. [ 23 ]Bandaw et al. [ 44 ]. and Beyene et al. [ 45 ]. reported that adult cattle in the Wolaita Zone and western Ethiopia were 2.69 and 2.7 times more likely, respectively, to contract the disease than young cattle. According to the report by Abunna et al. [ 35 ], the prevalence of FMD in cattle increased with age. These statistically significant prevalence differences between age groups may be because adult animals had a higher likelihood of freely moving to grazing areas, watering points, and markets, where infection could occur upon contact with other animals. Comparatively low seroprevalence in young animals indicated a low frequency of exposure to risk factors and limited contact with other herds, as most farmers keep them near the household during grazing. Higher FMD seropositivity is most often observed in adult animals than in young animals due to cumulative and repeated exposure, increased chance of contact with other animals, intrinsic age susceptibility, the experience of multiple transmission cycles, and consistently higher antibody reactions [ 46 ]. The present study also showed that the statistically significant highest seroprevalence was seen in cattle with poor body condition score (46.94%), compared to medium (25%) and good (24.01%) scores. The findings were in line with the report of Urge et al. [ 47 ], who stated that the percentage of people in low, medium, and good body condition was 58.1%, 47.5%, and 36.3%, respectively. This might be because animals with poor body conditions are more susceptible to the disease due to low immunity to resist disease, as animals with good body conditions have relatively good immunological responses to infection. In the present study, a significantly high seroprevalence of FMD was recorded in cattle kept with sheep and goats (29.61%) compared to those kept alone (11.32%). Compared to cattle kept alone, cattle housed alongside sheep and goats had 2.9 times the infection probability. This finding aligns with research that found comparable trends in other parts of Ethiopia by [ 32 , 34 , 45 ]. These findings suggest that because small ruminants may be carriers and transmitters of the disease, they play a key role in the epidemiology of FMD [ 34 ]. Concerning the serotyping of the FMDV in the present study, the results showed that four serotypes (O, SAT-1, and SAT-2) were in circulation. The current findings align with previous studies that showed Ethiopia is now experiencing the spread of FMDV of serotypes O, SAT-1, and SAT-2 [ 3 , 48 , 49 ]. The highest proportion of serotype SAT-2 identified in this study is consistent with Bandaw et al. [ 44 ], who conducted antigen detection using sandwich ELISA on 10 outbreak samples and confirmed that SAT-2 was involved in all FMD outbreaks in the study districts. Similarly, central Ethiopia had a high percentage of serotype SAT-2, according to [ 50 , 51 ], who also suggested that serotype SAT-2 is endemic in many sub-Saharan African countries. However, the current study relatively analyzed a small number of samples ( n = 22) used for FMDV serotyping determination. This is one of the limitations of the study, as the sample size might not fully represent the diversity of FMDV serotyping circulating in the study area, i.e., additional serotypes may be available but were not detected in this study. Therefore, future studies involving a larger sample size and broad study area coverage will be recommended to further serotyping and characterizing the epidemiology of FMDV in the study area. This study found that FMD is prevalent in the area due to one or more factors contributing to the disease’s occurrence. According to its local name (Afan Oromo), “ Okkolchiisaa ” which translates to “reluctant to move,” FMD is notably known to the majority of farmers (84.76%) in terms of its symptoms. A previous study by Mesfine et al. [ 52 ] It was found that 82.4% of interviewees were aware of FMD and its symptoms. This finding concurred with that study. Among the clinical indicators, lameness, salivation, and lesions on the hooves and mouth were the most frequently mentioned by respondents. Despite this awareness, not all farmers in the study area were aware of the important epidemiological risk factors associated with the disease. According to survey results, 97% of their animals or herds had free movement, and 96.19% had a history of contact with herds or animals of other peasant associations or districts at communal grazing and watering points. In addition, communal pasturing of cattle mixed with small ruminants (83.1%) and the introduction of new cattle into individually owned herds (22.86%) without screening for the health status of the new animals could be possible risk factors contributing to high disease transmission and occurrence. Unexpectedly, 23% of respondents were not taking any preventive action even though they were aware of FMD with clinical symptoms. This inaction may be attributed to a lack of knowledge, the perception that preventative actions are difficult to carry out, or an underestimation of the disease risk. This suggests that farmers in the study areas need to get education on FMD prevention strategies. The survey results also indicate that education influences the knowledge of the disease. In line with Delgado-Demera et al. [ 53 ], a high level of education has a more impressive ability to grasp and adopt appropriate farming practices. Similar findings reported that demonstrated that the gaps in farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices, including informal animal trade and weak quarantine enforcement, significantly undermine FMD control and prevention effects in West Kazakhstan, Central Asia [ 54 ]. Likewise, Ginayatov et al. [ 55 ] provided robust regional evidence that deficiencies in farmer knowledge and practice directly compromise disease monitoring, surveillance, reporting, and prevention outcomes in livestock systems. It is linked to more people knowing about effective FMD control measures and to a greater need for specific information to better understand and treat the disease. The overall serological investigation of FMD in East Bale Zone, Ethiopia, identified age, body condition, and mixed herding practice as the major determinants of FMD seropositivity (27.8%). The finding confirmed that host factors rather than environmental factors primarily influence the epidemiology of FMD. The results also concurred with previous reports in Ethiopia, which proved that Ethiopia was an endemic region of FMD. Conclusions The present study revealed that FMD is among the more prevalent diseases in the study area. Serotypes of FMDV, such as O, SAT-1, and SAT-2, were circulating, and mixed serotypes were detected: serotype A and SAT-2, serotypes O and SAT-2, serotypes O, SAT-2, and SAT-1, and serotypes O, A, SAT-1, and SAT-2. Risk factors, including the age of cattle, body condition score, and herding practices, were significantly associated with FMD seropositivity. Mixing cattle at watering and grazing areas, the free movement of animals, and inadequate veterinary services were common in the study areas. They could contribute to the recurrence of the disease. Although farmers understood FMD and its symptoms, they had limited information about how the disease spreads, particularly in relation to contact at common grazing and drinking areas. Ultimately, farmers and stakeholders should be aware of FMD transmission, develop and implement vaccination programs targeting circulating serotypes, and enhance veterinary services to improve disease management. Further epidemiological and molecular characterization studies are recommended. Supplementary Information Supplementary Material 1. (17.4KB, docx) Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the study area veterinary workers, respondents, and cattle owners for their willingness to participate in this study. Additionally, Ambo University and the Animal Health Institution provided logistical support that contributed to the success of this study. Abbreviations CI Confidence interval ELISA Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay FMD Foot and mouth disease FMDV Foot and mouth disease virus FMDV-NSP Foot and mouth disease virus nonstructural protein OD Optical density OR Odd ratios SAT South African territory χ2 Chi-squared Authors’ contributions Conceptualization, methodology, data collection, data analysis, and writing the manuscripts: Firaol Tariku Geleto, Tegegn Dilbato Dinbiso, and Getachew Mulatu Dilba. Laboratory investigation: Firaol Tariku Geleto, Ayelech Muluneh, and Teferi Benti. Funding Not applicable (N/A). Data availability The data that support the findings of the study and manuscript are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ambo University Guder Mamo Mezemir Campus Ethical Review Board. Before conducting the research, verbal consent was obtained from the livestock owners to collect blood samples from their animals for testing antibodies against the FMD Virus. All respondents (cattle owners) who participated in this study provided verbal consent before completing the questionnaire survey. The purpose, objectives, and procedures of the research were clearly explained in the local language (Afan Oromo), and each voluntary respondent gave verbal consent to participate. Before blood collection, the owners of the selected cattle received a detailed explanation of the sampling procedure and laboratory analysis, and they provided verbal consent. During the questionnaire survey and sample collection, no personal identifying information of the respondents’ cattle or farms was collected, reported, or analyzed; all data were analyzed and presented anonymously. Therefore, all cattle owners confirmed their informed consent before voluntarily participating in the study. In accordance with relevant national and institutional guidelines for veterinary epidemiological research, informed consent was deemed appropriate and was guaranteed for the study. Consent for publication Not applicable (N/A). Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Footnotes Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References 1. Wubshet AK, Dai J, Li Q, Zhang J. Review on Outbreak Dynamics, the Endemic Serotypes, and Diversified Topotypic Profiles of Foot and Mouth Disease Virus Isolates in Ethiopia from 2008 to 2018. Viruses. 2019;11(11):1076. 10.3390/v11111076. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] 2. Jemberu WT, Mourits MC, Sahle M, Siraw B, Vernooij JC, Hogeveen H. Epidemiology of Foot and Mouth Disease in Ethiopia: a Retrospective Analysis of District Level Outbreaks, 2007–2012. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2016;63(6):e246–59. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Ayelet G, Mahapatra M, Gelaye E, Egziabher BG, Rufeal T, Sahle M, Ferris NP, Wadsworth J, Hutchings GH, Knowles NJ. Genetic characterization of foot-and-mouth disease viruses, Ethiopia, 1981–2007. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009;15(9):1409–17. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Sentayhu Menda SM, Shiferaw Jenberie SJ, Haileleul Negusssie HN, Gelagay Ayelet GA. Molecular serotyping of foot and mouth disease outbreaks in Ethiopia. 2014. 5. Urge B, Gizaw D. Serotype identification, molecular-based detection, and characterization of FMD virus isolated from outbreak cases in selected areas of the Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Glob J Sci Front Res D Agric Vet. 2018.18(4):33–57. 6. Knight-Jones TJ, Rushton J. The economic impacts of foot and mouth disease - what are they, how big are they and where do they occur? Prev Vet Med. 2013;112(3–4):161–73. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Baluka S, Ocaido M, Mugisha A. Prevalence and economic importance of foot-and-mouth disease, and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia outbreaks in cattle in Isingiro and Nakasongola districts of Uganda. Discourse J Agric Food Sci. 2014;2(4):107–17. [ Google Scholar ] 8. Ahmed MJ, Hossain MI, Rahman MA, Bhuiyan MIH, Bhandari P, Alam KE, Chalise R, Kaderi IJ, Rahi MAI, Tarin T. Prevalence and Serotype Distribution of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Virus in Asian Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Veterinary Med Int. 2026;2026(1):5492291. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Dagnaw GG, Dejene H. Seroprevalence of foot and mouth disease in cattle in East Africa between 2014 and 2024: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Vet Res. 2025;21(1):395. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Rufael T, Catley A, Bogale A, Sahle M, Shiferaw Y. Foot and mouth disease in the Borana pastoral system, southern Ethiopia and implications for livelihoods and international trade. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2008;40(1):29–38. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Abdela N. Sero-prevalence, risk factors and distribution of foot and mouth disease in Ethiopia. Acta Trop. 2017;169:125–32. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Gortázar C, Barroso P, Nova R, Cáceres G. The role of wildlife in the epidemiology and control of Foot-and-mouth-disease And Similar Transboundary (FAST) animal diseases: A review. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2022;69(5):2462–73. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Hemida MG, Rizk El-Ghareeb W, Al-Hizab F, Ibrahim A. Foot-and-mouth disease virus O/ME-SA/Ind 2001 lineage outbreak in vaccinated Holstein Friesian cattle in Saudi Arabia in 2016. Vet Q. 2018;38(1):88–98. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Rajib Deb RD, Sandip Chakraborty SC, Belamaranahlly Veeregowda BV, Verma A, Ruchi Tiwari RT. Kuldeep Dhama KD: Monoclonal antibody and its use in the diagnosis of livestock diseases. 2013. 15. Xu L, Hurtle W, Rowland JM, Casteran KA, Bucko SM, Grau FR, Valdazo-González B, Knowles NJ, King DP, Beckham TR, et al. Development of a universal RT-PCR for amplifying and sequencing the leader and capsid-coding region of foot-and-mouth disease virus. J Virol Methods. 2013;189(1):70–6. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Mumford JA. Vaccines and viral antigenic diversity. Rev Sci Tech. 2007;26(1):69–90. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Seifu K, Muluneh A, Getachew Y, Jibril Y, Negussie H. Epidemiological study and dairy farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices on foot and mouth disease in central Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2023;9(5):e15771. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Jibat T, Admassu B, Rufael T, Baumann MP, Pötzsch CJ. Impacts of foot-and-mouth disease on livelihoods in the Borena Plateau of Ethiopia. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice. 2013;3(1):5. 19. Rweyemamu M, Roeder P, MacKay D, Sumption K, Brownlie J, Leforban Y. Planning for the progressive control of foot-and-mouth disease worldwide. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2008;55(1):73–87. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Paton DJ, Sumption KJ, Charleston B. Options for control of foot-and-mouth disease: knowledge, capability and policy. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009;364(1530):2657–67. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. Gemeda BA, Amenu K, Magnusson U, Dohoo I, Hallenberg GS, Alemayehu G, Desta H, Wieland B. Antimicrobial Use in Extensive Smallholder Livestock Farming Systems in Ethiopia: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Livestock Keepers. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7:55. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Bekere HY, Ahmed R, Anne AA, Bristy FF, Kumar S. Spatial and Temporal distribution of foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks. Am J Pure Appl Biosci. 2023;5(2):28–44. [ Google Scholar ] 23. Gizaw D, Negessu D, Fentie A, Muluneh A, Asgedom H, Guyassa C, Ashenafi H, Jemberu WT, Legesse M, Kassa T. Seroprevalence and serotype distribution of foot and mouth disease virus and associated risk factors in cattle across various export livestock sourcing districts of Bale Zone, Ethiopia. BMC Vet Res. 2024;20(1):543. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). Using dentition to age cattle. Washington, DC: US. Department of Agriculture; 2013. https://www.fsis.usda.gov . 25. Mishra S, Kumari K, Dubey A. Body condition scoring of dairy cattle: A review. Res Reviews: J Veterinary Sci. 2016;2(1):58–65. [ Google Scholar ] 26. Thrusfield M, Christley R, Brown H, Diggle P, French N, Howe K, et al. In: Wood H, editor. Veterinary Epidemiology. New York: Willey Blackwell; 2018. 27. Misgana Duguma MD, Yasmin Jibril YJ, Ahmed Issa AI, Addisalem Hunde AH. Sero-prevalence of foot and mouth disease of cattle in Bale Zone, Oromiya regional state, Ethiopia. 2013. 28. Arsham H. Questionnaire design and survey sampling. In.; 2007. 29. Habtamu Mekonen HM, Desta Beyene DB, Tesfaye Rufael TR, Ashenafi Feyisa AF, Abunna Fufa AF. Study on the prevalence of Foot and Mouth Disease in Borana and Guji Zones, Southern Ethiopia. 2011. 30. Ayelet G, Gelaye E, Negussie H, Asmare K. Study on the epidemiology of foot and mouth disease in Ethiopia. Rev Sci Tech. 2012;31(3):789–98. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. Shurbe M, Simeon B, Seyoum W, Muluneh A, Tora E, Abayneh E. Seroprevalence and associated risk factors for foot and mouth disease virus seropositivity in cattle in selected districts of Gamo zone, Southern Ethiopia. Front Vet Sci. 2022;9:931643. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 32. Ahmed B, Megersa L, Mulatu G, Siraj M, Boneya G. Seroprevalence and Associated Risk Factors of Foot and Mouth Disease in Cattle in West Shewa Zone, Ethiopia. Vet Med Int. 2020;2020:6821809. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] 33. Megersa B, Beyene B, Abunna F, Regassa A, Amenu K, Rufael T. Risk factors for foot and mouth disease seroprevalence in indigenous cattle in Southern Ethiopia: the effect of production system. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2009;41(6):891–8. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Gelaye E, Ayelet G, Abera T, Asmare K. Seroprevalence of foot and mouth disease in Bench Maji zone, Southwestern Ethiopia. J Veterinary Med Anim Health. 2009;1(1):005–10. [ Google Scholar ] 35. Molla B, Ayelet G, Asfaw Y, Jibril Y, Ganga G, Gelaye E. Epidemiological study on foot-and-mouth disease in cattle: seroprevalence and risk factor assessment in South Omo zone, south-western Ethiopia. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2010;57(5):340–7. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 36. Daniel N, Bernard B, David O, Eucharia K, Martin W, Santina G, Efrem F, Emiliana B, Silvia A. Seroprevalence of foot-and-mouth disease virus in cattle herds raised in Maasai Mara ecosystem in Kenya. Prev Vet Med. 2020;176:104929. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Tekleghiorghis T, Moormann RJ, Weerdmeester K, Dekker A. Foot-and‐mouth disease transmission in Africa: Implications for control, a review. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2016;63(2):136–51. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. Wungak YS, Olabisi IO, Olugasa BO, Lazarus DD, Ularamu HG. Seroprevalence of foot and mouth disease (FMD) among sedentary cattle in northern Plateau, Nigeria. Asian J Med Biol Res. 2015;1(2):169–74. [ Google Scholar ] 39. Dhakal SP, Pandey K, Upadhyaya M, Karki S, Ramdam N, VanDyk S, Premashthira S. Spatiotemporal distribution of foot-and-mouth disease in Nepal between 2019 and 2021. Anim Dis. 2023;3(1):39. [ Google Scholar ] 40. Khan D, Sheikh IS, Ullah A, Kasi KK, Mustafa MZ, Din ZU, Anwar I, Kakar N, Waheed A. Circulation of foot-and-mouth disease serotypes, risk factors, and their effect on hematological and biochemical profiles among cattle and buffalo in Quetta. Balochistan Pakistan Veterinary World. 2024;17(2):329. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 41. Osmani A, Robertson ID, Habib I, Aslami AA. History and epidemiology of foot-and-mouth disease in Afghanistan: a retrospective study. BMC Vet Res. 2019;15(1):340. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 42. Kong L, Siengsanan-Lamont J, Tum S, Sanyakamdhorn S, Selleck PW, Areerob J, Young JR, Gleeson LJ, Blacksell SD. Foot-and-mouth disease Non-Structural Protein seropositivity in cattle and pigs in Cambodia. 2023. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] 43. Woldemariyam FT, De Vleeschauwer A, Hundessa N, Muluneh A, Gizaw D, Tinel S, De Clercq K, Lefebvre D, Paeshuyse J. Risk factor assessment, sero-prevalence, and genotyping of the virus that causes foot-and-mouth disease on commercial farms in Ethiopia from October 2018 to February 2020. Agriculture. 2021;12(1):49. [ Google Scholar ] 44. Bandaw T, Gebremeskel HF, Muluneh A, Mengistu TS, Kebede IA. Seroprevalence and molecular detection of foot and mouth disease virus in cattle in selected districts of Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):7929. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 45. Beyene B, Tolosa T, Rufael T, Hailu B, Teklue T. Foot and mouth disease in selected districts of western Ethiopia: seroprevalence and associated risk factors. Rev Sci Tech. 2015;34(3):939–52. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 46. Zewdie G, Akalu M, Tolossa W, Belay H, Deresse G, Zekarias M, Tesfaye Y. A review of foot-and-mouth disease in Ethiopia: epidemiological aspects, economic implications, and control strategies. Virol J. 2023;20(1):299. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 47. Urge B, Dawo F, Alemu Z, Senbeta B, Aliyi A, Muluneh A. Foot and mouth disease virus infection seroprevalence study in dairy cattle reared by smallholder farmers in Welmera District, Central, Oromiya Ethiopia. J Vet Heal Sci. 2020;1:5–9. [ Google Scholar ] 48. Tadesse B, Molla W, Mengsitu A, Jemberu WT. Transmission dynamics of foot and mouth disease in selected outbreak areas of northwest Ethiopia. Epidemiol Infect. 2019;147:e189. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 49. Dubie T, Negash W. Seroprevalence of bovine foot and mouth disease (FMD) and its associated risk factors in selected districts of Afar region, Ethiopia. Veterinary Med Sci. 2021;7(5):1678–87. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 50. Mohammed Z, Aliy A, Jibril Y, Negussie H. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of the foot and mouth disease outbreaks in cattle in central Ethiopia. Ethiop Veterinary J. 2022;26(1):105–21. [ Google Scholar ] 51. Vosloo W, Bastos AD, Sangare O, Hargreaves SK, Thomson GR. Review of the status and control of foot and mouth disease in sub-Saharan Africa. Rev Sci Tech. 2002;21(3):437–49. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 52. Mesfine M, Nigatu S, Belayneh N, Jemberu WT. Sero-Epidemiology of Foot and Mouth Disease in Domestic Ruminants in Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Front Vet Sci. 2019;6:130. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 53. Delgado-Demera MH, Vasquez-Gamboa L, Zambrano-Alcivar ER, Zambrano-Gavilanes MP, Vera-Loor LE, López-Rauschemberg MK, Larrea-Izurieta CO, Macías-Andrade JI, Cedeño-Palacios CA, Macías-Rodriguez EG. Impact of the educational level of the owners on the implementation of good livestock practices on selected farms. J Anim Behav Biometeorol. 2024;12(4):2024027–2024027. [ Google Scholar ] 54. Bayantassova S, Kushaliyev K, Zhubantayev I, Zhanabayev A, Kenzhegaliyev Z, Ussenbayev A, Paritova A, Baikadamova G, Bakishev T, Zukhra A. Knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of smallholder farmers on foot-and‐mouth disease in Cattle in West Kazakhstan. Veterinary Med Sci. 2023;9(3):1417–25. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 55. Ginayatov N, Aitpayeva Z, Zhubantayev I, Kassymbekova L, Zhanabayev A, Abulgazimova G, Arynova R, Bizhanov A, Mussayeva A, Berdikulov M. Smallholder cattle farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward rabies: a regional survey in Kazakhstan. Veterinary Sci. 2025;12(4):335. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Supplementary Material 1. (17.4KB, docx) Data Availability Statement The data that support the findings of the study and manuscript are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Articles from BMC Veterinary Research are provided here courtesy of BMC ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.8 MB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• Helminths, Ticks, and Calf Mortality in Ethiopia: A Prospective Cohort Study.#228057
• Éditorial : Introduction aux journées d’étude sur le logis animal#288036
• Lungworm infection in small ruminants in Ethiopia: Systematic review and meta-analysis#478083
• How good are livestock statistics in Africa? Evidence from Ethiopia#401712
• Passport data of mother trees of agroforestry species under domestication process in West and Central Africa#1027889