Research Article

Farmer’s Knowledge, Attitude and Practice toward Lumpy Skin Disease in Bangladeshi Cattle: A KAP Study

Mst. Parvin Mostari1,2*, Sadia Binte Sadrul1, MD. Hafizur Rahman1, Rumana Khatun1, Mohammad Nizamul Hoque Touhid1, MD. Zulfekar Ali3, Kamrun Naher Papry2, A.H.M. Saiful Islam4, Mohammad Saiful Islam1

1Socio-Economic Research Division, Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute, Savar, Dhaka 1341, Bangladesh; 2Animal Production Research Division, Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute, Savar, Dhaka 1341, Bangladesh; 3Animal Health Research Division, Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute, Savar, Dhaka 1341, Bangladesh; 4Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh-2202, Bangladesh.

Received | March 10, 2025; Accepted | May 18, 2025; Published | June 26, 2025

*Correspondence | Mst. Parvin Mostari, Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute, Bangladesh; Email: [email protected]

Citation | Mostari MP, Sadrul SB, Rahman MH, Khatun R, Touhid MNH, Ali MZ, Papry KN, Islam AHMS, Islam MS (2025). Farmer’s knowledge, attitude and practice toward lumpy skin disease in bangladeshi cattle: A KAP study. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 13(7): 1606-1619.

DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.aavs/2025/13.7.1606.1619

ISSN (Online) | 2307-8316; ISSN (Print) | 2309-3331

Copyright: 2025 by the authors. Licensee ResearchersLinks Ltd, England, UK.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

INTRODUCTION

Lumpy skin disease (LSD) is a viral disease characterized by skin nodules, fever, and other symptoms of cattle. It can harm livestock with acute or chronic diseases, threatening animal husbandry (Givens, 2018). All types of cow species and ages are impacted, although young animals and those nearing lactation are especially sensitive (Tuppura et al., 2011). Recent outbreaks in undisclosed regions highlight the need to manage and eradicate the disease and its spread (Ali et al., 2019). The (LSD) is a 150-kilobase-pair double-stranded DNA virus with a lipid envelope and 230–260 nm dimensions. Sheeppox virus (SPPV) and goatpox virus (GTPV) are genetically related to LSDV (Bhanuprakash et al., 2006; Bary et al., 2017). This is the most commercially significant Poxviridae virus, affecting domestic ruminants. Capripoxvirus-genus LSD causes the disease. Under ideal weather, hematophagous vectors like flies and mosquitoes spread LSDV quickly (Sanz-Bernardo et al., 2021). The fast-spreading disease LSD has spread from Africa and the Middle East to Southeast Europe, the Caucasus, Russia, Bangladesh and Asia in the past decade (Acharya and Subedi, 2020; Giasuddin et al., 2019). The KAP research on LSD in cattle in Bangladesh assesses farmers’ knowledge and abilities to fight this viral disease. LSD caused by capripoxvirus can impair milk production, cause cutaneous sores, and kill cattle, resulting in financial losses (Ali and Hasan, 2018). This empirical research assesses farmers’ LSD knowledge, attitudes toward management and prevention, and epidemic responses. We have collected data from rural agricultural communities to discover knowledge gaps, misunderstandings, and behavioral patterns that may hamper disease control.

Recent LSD reports indicate high prevalence in Africa, with 8.7% in Uganda (Ochwo et al., 2019), 19.5% in Egypt (Selim et al., 2021), 72.3% in Uganda at herd level, and 27% and 20.8% in Ethiopia (Dubie et al., 2022). Hyper salivation, fever, and skin nodules are LSD symptoms (WOAH, 2024). Skin lesions have been identified by farmers as indicators of LSD and are used for reporting and treatment (Gambo et al., 2018; Ali and Giasuddin, 2020). LSD economic damages have been quantified using numerous methods. In Turkey, LSD losses were estimated at 886.34perdairyanimaland886.34perdairyanimaland1066.61 per beef cattle (Mat et al., 2021). The economic cost in Kenya was $ 31 per herd of indigenous cattle and $ 431 per herd of crossbred cattle due to LSD-related deaths. LSD-affected herds lost $ 37 per native cattle and $ 50 per crossbreed cattle owing to lower milk yield and higher veterinary expenditures. LSD causes body condition decline affecting market value, infertility, hide damage, and higher veterinary treatment and vaccination expenditures (Gambo et al., 2018) and those studies also found that vector control strategies lowered LSD risk in cattle. However, a lack of awareness of vectors’ role in LSD transmission may cause farmers to neglect vector management (Hatami et al., 2022). Although inefficient, LSD can be conveyed via touch (Kayesh et al., 2020). Immunization is the cheapest way to prevent LSDV. Collaboration is needed to manage LSD due to the global problem of reliable and cost-effective immunization (Habiyaremye et al., 2017). New animal introductions, shared grazing and watering sites, replacement stock origin, seasonal timing, and animal mobility are all linked to LSD. Prior studies have demonstrated that communities in South Africa and Nigeria have a good comprehension of LSD (Habiyaremye et al., 2017).

Despite LSD’s prevalence in neighboring regions, Bangladesh lacks KAP data, hindering localized interventions. This study aims to identify the scenario including knowledge attitude and practices of lumpy skin disease farmers. To the best of our knowledge this is the first of its kind of LSD research in Bangladesh that tries to build knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral practices and their interlink ages including determinants. Therefore, findings of this study will be useful for farmers, policy makers and researcher to better design LSD prevention mechanisms in developing country like Bangladesh.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Area

The study spanned eight districts, each from a different administrative division: Dhaka (Dhaka division), Barguna (Barishal division), Meherpur (Khulna division), Rajshahi (Rajshahi division), Chattogram (Chattogram division), Mymensingh (Mymensingh division), Rangpur (Rangpur division), and Sylhet (Sylhet division). These districts were chosen to ensure a varied geographical, environmental, and socio-economic representation of the nation. In the second stage, two or more Upazilas were purposively selected from each district. The varied climatic circumstances in these districts—ranging from coastal and flood-prone areas to hilly and semi-arid regions—offered a comprehensive view of farmers’ management of cattle ailments such as lumpy skin disease (Figure 1). This compilation of research areas facilitated a comprehensive understanding of farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in the management of lumpy skin disease across multiple settings, mirroring the varied agricultural environment of Bangladesh.

Study Design, Sampling Technique and Sample Size Determination

This study’s methodology employed purposive and simple random sampling techniques to collect primary data from livestock farmers affected by LSD. Data collection focused on respondents whose farms experienced LSD outbreaks. The sample size was determined by the following formula (Cochran, 1977).

In this formula, n represents the required sample size, Z-value corresponds to the chosen confidence level, P is the assumed population proportion, and e is the desired level of precision. A population proportion of 0.50 and a 95% confidence level were assumed to account for maximum variability, with a precision level of 5%, considering the heterogeneity in farms, such as income, size, and other factors. Applying this formula, the required sample size was calculated to be 430 farmers. The 430 respondents were distributed across 8 divisions of Bangladesh, with sample sizes varying based on the intensity of LSD outbreaks. Specifically, randomly 30 farmers were interviewed in Dhaka, 40 in Barisal, 70 in Khulna, 60 in Rajshahi, 80 in Chattogram, 60 in Mymensingh, 60 in Rangpur, and 40 in Sylhet. The unequal sample sizes in certain areas were determined based on a review of secondary literature, which highlighted regions with a prevalence of LSD affected cattle. To identify the farms affected by LSD, lists were obtained from the respective upazila livestock officers, veterinary hospitals, and district livestock offices. The study aimed to assess farmers’ knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) regarding LSD, providing insights into how farmers in Bangladesh responded to the disease and managed their livestock during the outbreaks.

Method of Data Collection

A structured KAP questionnaire was developed as the data collection instrument. This questionnaire comprises 30 items, categorized into sections for knowledge (11 items), attitudes (9 items), and practices (10 items), aimed at evaluating participants’ awareness, beliefs, and behaviors regarding veterinary vaccines, particularly LSD in cattle. The Knowledge section assesses farmers’ comprehension of LSD symptoms, transmission, prevention and treatment, in addition to general biosecurity and health management practices. The Attitudes Section had questions that assessed participants’ perspectives on disease prevention, vaccination, and their readiness to participate in additional training or seminars on disease control. The Practices part analyzed the farmers’ actual methodologies, including their vaccination utilization, documentation of disease occurrences, and compliance with biosecurity protocols on their farms. The instrument was implemented via in-person interviews with the farmers, facilitating question clarification and ensuring precise replies. Sampling was performed to encompass various farm sizes and farmer demographics in the region, ensuring that the insights obtained might mirror wider trends in the local agricultural community. Responses were carefully gathered and maintained for analysis, employing statistical tests (e.g., chi-square tests) to examine connections among variables (e.g., knowledge level and behaviors). The KAP technique offers a systematic assessment of farmers’ knowledge and current practices on LSD management, facilitating the identification of deficiencies and areas requiring more assistance.

LSD Case Definition

Lumpy skin disease (LSD) cases in this study were identified through clinical diagnosis. Farmers and local veterinary officers recognized LSD primarily through characteristic clinical signs, including skin nodules, fever, swollen lymph nodes, reduced milk yield, and general weakness (Giasuddin et al., 2019). These clinical features are widely recognized in the region and are consistent with established veterinary diagnostic guidelines.

Data Management and Analysis

The content was categorized into many domains, including management practices, knowledge, attitudes, and socio-demographic factors. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages, were first generated for each independent variable using bivariate analysis. Subsequently, the Chi-square tests were employed to evaluate the association between each independent variable and the dependent variables. Three univariable logistic regression models were developed for each category of knowledge, attitude, and practice to assess the observed level of knowledge prior to multivariate analysis. Upon identifying significant covariates (p<0.05) using univariate analysis. Independent factors were deemed significant predictors of veterinary vaccination knowledge if their p-value was below 0.05.

RESULTS

Demographic Characteristics of the Participants

Table 1 shows the findings of a survey on knowledge, attitudes, and interests about LSD and other widespread cattle diseases. In addition to the statistical significance of the answers, it provides information on the frequency and percentage of respondents who answered questions about LSD, farm biosecurity, illness symptoms, record-keeping, and training. Survey results showed that 98.4% (χ2χ2=1.087) of respondents were aware of LSD. There are considerable information gaps regarding vaccination, LSD treatment, as well as record-keeping. A significant finding (p=0.024) indicates that most respondents (87.2%) know biosecurity processes. Nevertheless, there is always scope for improvement. Another significant finding (p=0.000) showed that the majority of the respondents (87.9%) had an excellent grasp of how LSD spreads. There is a significant lack of understanding of the treatment of LSD, as demonstrated by the lower percentage of participants (50.9%) who receive information about its treatment. Training and education activities could aid in addressing these issues. About 89.3% of the participants expressed an overwhelming need to learn more about LSD, including its fundamental principles and preventive measures. This provides an opportunity for expanded and specific communication services. Knowledge about biosecurity and the spread of LSD is generally strong amongst respondents; nevertheless, there is a shortage of practical uses of this information, such as prevention and treatment. Only 39.1% of participants had undergone

 

Table 1: Participants’ knowledge of lumpy skin disease in Bangladesh.

Variables	Categories	Frequency	Proportion(%)	Chi-square(χ2)	P-value
Do you have any knowledge about LSD as an animal disease?	Yes No	423 7	98.4 1.6	1.087	0.297
Do you know symptoms of commonly occurring diseases (FMD, Mastitis, Milk fever and ketosis)?	Yes No	417 13	97 3	2.049	0.152
Do you know how to keep farm inventory records (farm production, sales records, disease outbreaks)?	Yes No	245 185	57 43	14.985	0.000
Do you have any knowledge about farm biosecurity guidelines? (washing regularly, Farm Safety, Animal feeding hygiene, Quarantine/Isolation, Water logging)	Yes No	375 55	87.2 12.8	5.075	0.024
Do you have any knowledge about how LSD spreads from animal to animal?	Yes No	378 52	87.9 12.1	9.040	0.003
Do you have any knowledge about the treatment of LSD?	Yes No	219 211	50.9 49.1	18.282	0.000
Do you know anything about heath-related (deworming, treatment, vaccine) record keeping?	Yes No	251 179	58.4 41.6	16.383	0.000
Do you know about training and seminars on common livestock disease outbreaks?	Yes No	168 262	39.1 60.9	10.790	0.001
Are you interested in receiving further information on LSD?	Yes No	384 46	89.3 10.7	7.872	0.005
What specific information on LSD would you like to receive?	1. How to prevent the disease 2. How to treat affected animals 3. Basic knowledge about the disease	46 62 258 64	10.7 14.4 60.0 14.9	23.840	0.000
Are you familiar with LSD Vaccine	Yes No	26 404	6.0 94	4.229	0.040

 

training, indicating that more educational possibilities are required for enhancing awareness and knowledge.

In summary, while awareness of common cattle diseases and LSD transmission is high, significant knowledge gaps remain, particularly in areas like record-keeping, LSD treatment, and vaccination. These findings highlight the need for targeted educational programs to address these gaps.

Considering Factors Influencing Farmers’ Knowledge About LSD

Table 2 illustrates that male respondents were approximately 3.8 times more likely to have good knowledge compared to female respondents (OR = 3.79, CI: 2.12–6.79, p < 0.001). Youth respondents were approximately 1.6 times more likely to have good knowledge compared to older respondents (OR = 1.63, CI: 1.01–2.60, p = 0.041), while no significant difference was observed between middle-aged and older respondents. Educational status showed a significant association, with respondents having SSC-level education being approximately 3.6 times more likely to possess good knowledge compared to illiterate individuals (OR = 3.58, CI: 2.22–5.75, p < 0.001); however, other educational levels showed varied, nonsignificant associations. Type of farm also played a crucial role, with dairy farmers being about 20 times more likely to demonstrate good knowledge compared to fattening farmers (OR = 20.01, CI: 9.21–43.46, p < 0.001), whereas no significant difference was noted for combined farm operations. Furthermore, training in disease management was a key factor, as those who received training were nearly 2.8 times more likely to exhibit good knowledge compared to those without training (OR = 2.84, CI: 1.67–4.80, p < 0.001).

Farmers’ Attitude Towards LSD and its Awareness Program

Most respondents (98.37%) expressed strong interest in LSD awareness campaigns, emphasizing the potential for enormous involvement in the community (Table 3). Among them (95.58%), people thought training was advantageous; the statistical significance implies that views vary among the farmers. While considering biosecurity, although there is no statistically significant association, many personnel are frightened

 

Table 2: Factors influencing participants’ knowledge of lumpy skin disease in Bangladesh.

Variables	Categories	knowledge		OR 95% CI	P- value
		Good(%)	Poor (%)
Gender	Female	21 (36.8%)	36 (63.2%)	Ref.
	Male	257 (68.9%)	116 (31.1%)	3.79(2.12-6.79)	0.000
Age	Old	68 (60.7%)	44 (39.3%)	Ref.
	Middle	99 (60.7%)	64 (39.3%)	1.00 (0.61-1.63)	0.997
	Youth	111 (71.6%)	44 (28.4%)	1.63(1.01-2.60)	0.041
Educational Status	Illiterate	4 (44.4%)	5 (55.6%)	Ref.
	Primary	50 (43.9%)	64 (56.1%)	1.02 (0.26-4.01)	0.972
	S S C	165 (73.7%)	59 (26.3%)	3.58 (2.22-5.75)	0.000
	H S C	31 (73.8%)	11 (26.2)	1.31 (0.51-3.38)	0.579
	Hons	28 (68.3%)	13 (31.7%)	2.69 (0.62-11.71)	0.186
Type of farm	Fattening	47 (44.8%)	58 (55.2%)	Ref.
	Dairy	146 (94.2%)	9 (5.8%)	20.01(9.21-43.46)	0.000
	Combine	85 (50.0%)	85 (50.0%)	1.23 (0.75-2.01)	0.399
Received training in disease management	Yes	87 (80.6%)	21 (19.4%)	Ref.
	No	191 (59.3%)	131 (40.7%)	2.84(1.67-4.80)	0.000

 

Table 3: Attitude of participants towards lumpy skin disease in Bangladesh.

Variables	Categories	Frequency	Proportion (%)	Chi- square(χ2)	P- value
Are you interested in participating in various public awareness activities regarding LSD?	Yes No	423 7	98.37 1.63	1.087	0.297
Do years and training sessions on livestock farming careful?	Yes No	411 19	95.58 4.42	3.038	0.081
Are you concerned about bio-security guidelines and the importance of biosecurity?	Yes No	352 78	81.86 18.14	2.565	0.109
Are you satisfied with the farm's hygiene management?	Yes No	168 262	39.07 60.93	10.790	0.001
Are animal vaccines easily accessible?	Yes No	374 56	86.98 13.02	9.839	0.002
Do you think cleaning and disinfecting of farms reduce LSD outbreaks?	Yes No	387 43	90.00 10.00	.110	0.740
What does the respondent do if cattle are sick/show signs of disease?	Seek veterinary assistance and report immediately Treat the affected animals Slaughter cattle for meat purpose Sell the cattle Don’t know Isolation	57 292 9 3 19 50	13.26 67.91 2.09 0.70 4.42 11.63	22.415	0.000
Do you think vaccination reduces your loss?	Yes No	366 64	85.12 14.88	8.941	0.003
Do you seek any support from the government or NGOs?	Yes No	335 95	77.91 22.09	8.677	0.003

 

about it. A sizable portion (χ2=10.790) express dissatisfaction with hygiene routines, which has essential intervention implications. An extensive statistical background exists for the overwhelming favorable view of vaccine accessibility. The majority (χ2=22.415) prefer to recover sick cattle on their own, thus revealing an extensive knowledge of approaches to management. About (85.12%) they preferred vaccination to reduce loss. There is a noteworthy penchant for contacting the government and non-governmental organizations for assistance, reflecting the need for help from outside sources.

 

Table 4: Factors influencing the attitude of the participants about lumpy skin disease in Bangladesh.

Variables	Categories	knowledge		OR 95% CI	P- value
		Positive(%)	Negative (%)
Gender	Male	57 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	Ref.
	Female	350 (93.8%)	23 (6.2%)	7.71 (0.46-128.71)	0.155
Age	Old	106 (94.6%)	6 (5.4%)	Ref.
	Middle	157 (96.3%)	6 (3.7%)	1.48 (0.46-4.71)	.025
	Youth	144 (92.9%)	11 (7.1%)	2.36 (0.87-6.37)	0.089
Educational Status	Illiterate	9 (100.0%)	0(0.0%)	Ref.
	Primary	103 (90.4%)	11 (9.6%)	1.88(0.80-4.42)	0.143
	S S C	212 (94.6%)	12( 5.4%)	5.00(0.29-86.08)	0.267
	H S C	42 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1.02(0.01-52.83)	0.990
	Hons	41 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	4.37(0.08-234.45)	0.468
Type of farm	Fattening	96 (91.4%)	9(8.6%)	Ref.
	Dairy	147 (94.8%)	8(5.2%)	1.72(0.64-4.61)	0.279
	Combine	164 (96.5%)	6(3.5%)	1.48(0.50-4.38)	0.471
Received training in disease management	No	86 (79.6%)	22 (20.4%)	Ref.
	Yes	321 (99.7%)	1 (0.3%)	82.11(10.91-617.86)	0.000

 

Factors Influencing Farmers’ Attitudes Toward LSD

Table 4 represents those male participants universally displayed a positive attitude (100%), whereas females were slightly less positive (93.8%), though the difference was not statistically significant (OR = 7.71, p = 0.155). Middle-aged respondents were 1.48 times, and youth 2.36 times, more likely to have a positive attitude compared to older participants, with statistical significance observed only in the middle-aged group (OR = 1.48, p = 0.025). Educational status showed trends, with SSC-educated individuals being 5 times more likely to have a positive attitude than illiterates (OR = 5.00, p = 0.267), though not significant. Dairy and combined farm operators were 1.72 and 1.48 times more likely, respectively, to exhibit positive attitudes compared to fattening farmers, without significance. The strongest factor was training in disease management, where trained participants were 82.11 times more likely to have a positive attitude (p < 0.001).

Management and Awareness Practice of Livestock by Farmers

The results of the research on cattle owners’ attitudes and practices regarding LSD are shown in Table 5. A statistically significant correlation between the farmers’ knowledge or behaviors about LSD precautions is demonstrated by the chi-square value of 7.339, and the P= 0.007, both below the standard significance level of 0.05. This means that the farmers’ groups’ choices regarding LSD precautions differ significantly from one another, considering the chi-square value of 7.339 and P=0.007. A significant percentage (77.21%) of cattle owners taking preventive measures showed awareness and willingness to invest money in their homes that may lower the incidence of disease and its associated costs (e.g., veterinary bills, loss of livestock). A shortage of veterinary care or effective treatment options may cause the refusal to treat. From the table, we found that most farmers (70.93%) have access to vaccination programs in their areas, and having such programs in the region is statistically significant. Vaccinations can assist in preventing outbreaks and protect herds to maintain livestock output. While considering vaccination programs, 34.42% of respondents reported it happens every two years, while 32.56% claimed it is given only during outbreaks. This result was statistically significant and showed that vaccination program frequency varies greatly. An unsatisfactory acceptance rate could indicate that biosecurity measures need to be introduced better. Only 37.44% of farmers isolated infected cattle, though this practice was statistically significant (P = 0.001). Farmers may suffer severe economic losses if diseases arise due to inadequate quarantine procedures, which can negatively impact herd productivity and health. But a large percentage (76.74%) of the surveyed areas skipped quarantine, and the technique of keeping newly introduced cattle in quarantine.

Getting rid of dead cattle carefully is crucial to avoiding contamination and disease propagation. Good disposal techniques can reduce possible outbreak-related financial effects. There is a substantial difference (P=0.000) between the two methods of disposing of deceased livestock (buried underground vs. cremated), with burial being the more popular choice among respondents. Farmers’ approaches to keeping their herds free from LSD differ significantly (P=0.000). Avoiding purchasing cattle from unknown suppliers is the most preferred proactive approach (76.74%),

 

Table 5: Participants’ Practice and management of lumpy skin disease.

Variables	Categories	Frequency	Proportion (%)	Chi-square (χ2)	P-value
Did you follow any precautions about LSD?	Yes No	332 98	77.21 22.79	7.339	0.007
Have you treated LSD-affected animals?	Yes No	428 2	99.53 0.47	.307	0.579
Do you have a vaccination program in your area?	Yes No	305 125	70.93 29.07	4.234	0.040
How often does the vaccination program run in your area?	Every 6 months Annually During outbreak never	148 43 140 99	34.42 10.00 32.56 23.02	24.392	0.000
To whom do you consult about your affected cattle?	Veterinarian Quack Drug dealer Self	47 318 50 15	10.93 73.95 11.63 3.49	6.987	0.072
Did you use an isolation room for affected cattle?	Yes No	161 269	37.44 62.56	11.107	0.001
Did you maintain quarantine for newly introduced cattle on your farm?	Yes No	100 330	23.26 76.74	1.201	0.273
How did you dispose of your dead cattle?	Buried underground Burnt Leave anywhere Call veterinarian	252 178	58.60 41.40	13.226	0.000
How do you currently protect your herd from LSD?	Disinfecting animal premises regularly Not buying cattle or other livestock from risky sources Not doing anything others	32 330 68	7.44 76.74 15.81	19.912	0.000
What do you think? What are the necessary steps to prevent or control LSD?	Yes No	146 197	33.95 45.81	10.955	0.012
control LSD?		37 50	8.60 11.63

 

while fewer participants typically clean premises for animals or adopt no action at all. A more significant percentage of respondents (45.81%) did not believe any specific actions must be taken, but some respondents (33.95%) did. Opinions of what was necessary for avoiding or limiting LSD differed significantly (P=0.012).

Cattle owners might have higher long-term expenses when they rely on unqualified sources, which could result in incorrect treatments and inferior animal health outcomes. Economic efficiency could be enhanced by improving access to veterinary care. Utilizing Isolation Rooms: Isolation may prevent the spread of sickness, which lowers the possibility of financial losses. An unsatisfactory acceptance rate could indicate that biosecurity measures need to be introduced better. Only 37.44% of farmers reported using an isolation room for infected cattle, but the prevalence of its use seems statistically significant (P = 0.001). This suggests that isolation rooms are not standard among farmers in this area. Preservation of Quarantine: Farmers may suffer severe economic losses if diseases arise due to inadequate quarantine procedures, which can also negatively impact herd productivity and health. But a large percentage (76.74%) of the surveyed areas skipped quarantine, and the technique of keeping newly introduced cattle in quarantine. This implies that quarantine regulations for incoming livestock are not as frequently observed and do not significantly correlate with additional research components. Getting rid of dead cattle carefully is crucial to avoiding contamination and disease propagation. Good disposal techniques can reduce possible outbreak-related financial effects. There is a substantial difference (P = 0.000) between the two methods of disposing of deceased livestock (buried underground vs. cremated), with burial being the more popular choice among respondents.

Current Protection Methods

A lack of active protective measures suggests a gap in knowledge or resources, which could lead to increased vulnerability to LSD and subsequent economic impacts on

 

Table 6: Factors influencing participants’ practice and management of lumpy skin disease in Bangladesh.

Variables	Categories	knowledge		OR 95% CI	P-value
		Good (%)	Poor (%)
Gender	Male	280(75.1%)	93(24.9%)	Ref.
	Female	52(91.2%)	5(8.80%)	3.45(1.33-8.90)	0.010
Age	Old	88(78.6%)	24(21.4%)	Ref.
	Youth	119(76.8%)	36(23.2%)	1.11(0.62-1.99)	0.728
	Middle	125(76.7%)	38(23.3%)	1.00(0.60-1.69)	0.985
Educational Status	Illiterate	9(100.0%)	0(0.00%)	Ref.
	Primary	79(69.3%)	35(30.7%)	8.48(0.48-149.82)	0.144
	S S C	177(79.0%)	47(21.0%)	1.66(1.00-2.78)	0.882
	H S C	34(81.0%)	8(19.0%)	1.12(0.48-2.60)	0.776
	Hons	33(80.5%)	8(19.5%)	1.03(0.34-3.06)	0.957
Type of farm	Fattening	88(83.8%)	17(16.2%)	Ref.
	Dairy	134(86.5%)	21(13.5%)	1.23(0.61-2.46)	0.000
	Combine	110(64.7%)	60(35.3%)	3.48(1.99-6.07)	0.703
Received training in disease management	No	25(23.1%)	83(76.9%)	Ref.
	Yes	307(95.3%)	15(4.7%)	67.94(34.27-134.73)	0.000

 

livestock operations. Farmers’ approaches to keeping their herds from LSD differ significantly (P=0.000). Avoiding purchasing cattle from unknown suppliers is the most preferred proactive approach (76.74%), while fewer participants typically clean premises for animals or adopt no action at all. Necessary Steps for Prevention/Control: This perception could drive demand for educational programs and resources that focus on effective LSD management, ultimately improving herd health and economic resilience in the sector. A larger proportion of respondents (45.81%) believed no specific actions were necessary, while others (33.95%) disagreed. Opinions of what is necessary for avoiding or limiting LSD differ significantly (P = 0.012).

The data suggests a mix of awareness and significant gaps in practice among cattle owners regarding LSD management. Investing in education, veterinary access, and proper biosecurity measures could enhance livestock health, reduce disease transmission, and ultimately benefit farmers economically. Addressing these gaps could be pivotal in improving the overall economic viability of cattle farming in affected areas.

Considering Factors of Management and Awareness Practice for Livestock by Farmers

From the Table 6 we found that female participants were 3.45 times more likely to demonstrate good practices compared to males (p = 0.010). Age did not significantly influence practices, as youth (OR = 1.11) and middle-aged participants (OR = 1.00) were similarly likely to exhibit good practices compared to older participants. Illiterate participants universally exhibited good practices (100%), and while primary-educated individuals were 8.48 times more likely to have good practices, this was not statistically significant. Dairy farmers were 1.23 times more likely to demonstrate good practices compared to fattening farmers (p < 0.001), while combined farm operators showed higher odds of poor practices (OR = 3.48). Training in disease management was the most influential factor, with trained participants being 67.94 times more likely to exhibit good practices compared to those untrained (p < 0.001). Overall, the most influential factor for good practice was receiving training in disease management, followed by gender, where females were significantly more likely to practice better management compared to males. Other variables, such as age, education, and type of farm, showed mixed trends, with some leaning towards good practice but without consistent statistical significance. Combined farm operators were more likely to exhibit poor practices.

DISCUSSION

The study carried out in the target region looked at how well local farmers understand and respond to lumpy skin disease (LSD). It highlighted how critical cattle producers are in preventing the spread of diseases. Nearly all the farmers surveyed were familiar with foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). However, the results revealed important gaps in their knowledge and attitudes gaps that, if not addressed, could stand in the way of successfully eliminating FMD from the area. The study also showed that a large number of farmers were aware of LSD, echoing what Jost et al. (2007) found: that farm owners usually recognize the visible signs of disease in their own cattle and on neighboring farms. The current research found that farmers are generally cautious about bringing in animals from high-risk sources, such as markets known to have LSD outbreaks or areas suspected of harboring the disease. Previous studies (Blacksell et al., 2019; Ali et al., 2019) have shown that buying cattle from these places significantly increases the risk of spreading LSD, as these animals are often mixed with those from other herds that have also been on the move.

The study’s results indicated that, unlike female respondents, men respondents shown superior comprehension of vaccines, had more favorable opinions, and employed them more efficiently. This is attributable to several factors, such as disparities in information availability, cultural perspectives, educational opportunities, and engagement with veterinary vaccinations (Acosta et al., 2022; Khokon et al., 2017; Mutua et al., 2019; Omondi et al., 2022; Serra et al., 2022). Additionally, due to cultural norms or gender roles, males may engage more in animal care, hence enhancing their familiarity with veterinary vaccinations (McKune et al., 2021). Prior research has underscored gender disparities in information-seeking behaviors and access to educational resources, potentially elucidating the knowledge gap between males and females (Girma et al., 2022; Lindahl et al., 2019; Nuvey et al., 2023; Ochieng et al., 2012). This study’s correlation between male gender and effective LSD immunization procedures is consistent with the results of (Acosta et al., 2022; Williams et al., 2022).

Moreover, studies conducted by Serra et al. (2022) have demonstrated that gender disparities might influence attitudes and behaviors about animal healthcare procedures. Mitigating gender inequities and tailoring treatments to specific agricultural situations and geographic contexts, while prioritizing veterinary care, education, and information dissemination, is crucial for improving local practices (Robi et al., 2023). Higher education fosters enhanced knowledge, superior management practices, and more optimistic attitudes, serving as a light of hope for improved biosecurity. Education enhances individuals’ access to knowledge, refines their critical thinking skills, and aids in the understanding of scientific concepts (Amemiya et al., 2023; Tufa et al., 2023). These findings align with previous research indicating a correlation between educational attainment and knowledge of veterinary vaccinations (McKune et al., 2021; Ali et al., 2020). Research by Tufa et al. (2023) in Ethiopia demonstrated the beneficial effects of education on veterinary practices, including vaccination delivery (Acosta et al., 2022) Investigated the influence of education on healthcare behaviors, concluding that while education improves knowledge and attitudes, further interventions may be required to induce behavioral change (Jafari-Gh et al., 2020) shown that education significantly influences farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices, whereas Can and (Can and Altug, 2014) indicated that farmers with elevated educational attainment often had superior biosecurity ratings. The findings of the present study align with the notion that older farmers tend to acquire knowledge and adopt biosecurity measures by emulating methods from other farms, although perhaps lacking strong conviction on the necessity of these actions (Chowdhury et al., 2023). Additionally, another study indicated notable disparities in farmers’ involvement in several tasks related to the care of ill animals (Hopker et al., 2021; Ali et al., 2022).

The type of farm significantly influences management practices, attitudes, and knowledge pertaining to veterinary vaccinations. A survey by Asfaw et al. (2022) investigated healthcare practices across different farm types and found that farm-specific factors, such as infrastructure, management practices, attitudes, and available resources, affect variability in healthcare methods. This variation can be ascribed to multiple factors, such as disparities in veterinary care, the economic significance of livestock species, awareness of vaccine effectiveness, historical encounters with disease outbreaks, and differences in expertise concerning the management of particular livestock types (Seifu et al., 2023). Research by Nuvey et al. (2023) indicates that farm type affects knowledge, attitudes, and the implementation of veterinary vaccination protocols (Asfaw et al., 2022) examined healthcare methodologies across different farm types and noted that farm-specific factors, such as infrastructure, management practices, attitudes, and available resources, affect healthcare strategies. Increasing farmers’ understanding can enhance agricultural biosecurity (Azbel-Jackson et al., 2018). A study indicates that enhanced knowledge leads to more favorable attitudes, which subsequently foster improved biosecurity measures (Makita et al., 2020). The potential for disease transmission from dairy products or the agricultural environment to farmers and consumers persists in the absence of effective biosecurity protocols. Implementing biosecurity measures is anticipated to markedly decrease the prevalence of nonspecific enteritis among farmers and their families, particularly those directly or indirectly engaged in agricultural operations or drinking dairy milk.

Studies have shown that knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors are interconnected and impacted by demographic variables (Jafari-Gh et al., 2020). Elevated biosecurity ratings have been correlated with increased herd numbers. Larger herds may be more vulnerable to disease outbreaks, resulting in enhanced biosecurity measures (Jafari-Gh et al., 2020). Footbaths are a method demonstrated to enhance the condition of cows’ hooves and reduce biosecurity hazards on farms. In regions where infectious illnesses such as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) are prevalent, footbaths should be considered a crucial biosecurity tool (Rahman et al., 2020). Knowledge, attitudes, and practices are intricately linked. Farmers with a deeper comprehension of biosecurity are more inclined to embrace positive attitudes toward biosecurity protocols, leading to enhanced practices. Furthermore, farmers’ perceptions of biosecurity may evolve over time (Brennan and Christley, 2013), underscoring the imperative for ongoing training and awareness initiatives. Notwithstanding the importance of biosecurity, hardly 13.3% of farmers employ footbaths at their farm gates, and less than half (46.7%) recognize the potential hazards from neighbors or strangers (Chowdhury et al., 2023). Veterinarians emphasize that mindset and proficiency are crucial for implementing biosecurity measures on farms (Pritchard et al., 2015). Vaccines, as an integral aspect of veterinary care, are indispensable for disease prevention and the overall well-being of animals (Chambers et al., 2016). The statistically significant knowledge deficiencies among participants reveal a lack of understanding of the preventative advantages of vaccinations and their contribution to improving animal care. Comprehension and acceptance of veterinary vaccines can be enhanced by educating participants with the objectives and advantages of vaccination initiatives (Williams et al., 2022). Furthermore, it is essential to advocate for scientific research and evidence-based data demonstrating the efficacy of veterinary vaccinations in preventing and controlling diseases (Chambers et al., 2016; Sander et al., 2020). Presenting evidence on the advantages of vaccination, including reduced disease prevalence and improved animal health, may alter attitudes and encourage vaccine uptake (Girma et al., 2022; Nuvey et al., 2023; Sander et al., 2020).

Delivering precise information on vaccine safety, possible side effects, and rigorous testing and approval procedures might mitigate worries and reduce apprehension towards vaccination (Chambers et al., 2016; Hoelzer et al., 2018). The participants’ perceptions about the availability and utilization of veterinary immunizations are highly connected, suggesting that barriers to vaccine access may affect their practices (Williams et al., 2022). A prior research indicated that 70% of dairy producers in Canada and 86% of dairy farmers in Ireland administered at least one immunization dose to their cows (Denis-Robichaud et al., 2019). Contrary to the well-recognized scientific consensus that most vaccinations need booster doses for enduring and efficient protection, 70.93% of participants in the present survey said that they vaccinated their animals against Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) (Tuppurainen et al., 2021). The perception of farmers regarding the viability and effectiveness of vaccination programs may be influenced by the necessity of many vaccinations to safeguard livestock against various illnesses (Hoelzer et al., 2018). Participants in the research acknowledged the need of comprehensive vaccination coverage for effective disease control in cattle herds (Hopker et al., 2021). The timing of vaccinations that influenced seasonal circumstances was substantially linked with immunization habits. Consistent with the findings of Hopker et al. (2021), Gizaw et al. (2021) also identified a correlation between vaccination season decisions and cattle disease management strategies.

Factors such as access to veterinary services, educational initiatives, cultural views, illness prevalence, and vaccination awareness campaigns may influence the relationships between districts and the knowledge, attitudes, and management practices about veterinary vaccines (Kalam et al., 2022). These variables can profoundly influence the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors about veterinary vaccinations among communities throughout various districts (Acosta et al., 2022). Consistent with these findings, multiple studies (Donadeu et al., 2019; Girma et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2022) have highlighted that regional knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning veterinary vaccines are profoundly affected by the accessibility and availability of veterinary services and educational resources. A research by Gizaw et al. (2021) in Ethiopia further substantiated the influence of regional factors on veterinary practices, knowledge, and attitudes, highlighting disparities in the availability of veterinary services and resources among various regions. (Areru et al., 2022; Abera et al., 2021) discovered that geographic location significantly influenced healthcare behaviors, attitudes, and knowledge. (Smith et al., 2022) indicate that rural individuals may encounter difficulties in accessing these resources, perhaps leading to less knowledge relative to their urban counterparts. Furthermore, it has been observed that farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and actions are considerably influenced by their income (Jafari-Gh et al., 2020).

The expense of veterinarian immunizations may substantially hinder adoption. This research highlights the economic factors influencing individuals’ assessments on their usage (Donadeu et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2022). Participants’ opinions of the government’s duty to finance veterinary vaccines showed a significant link with their utilization of vaccinations. Furthermore, it was shown that participants’ views on the government’s responsibility to finance veterinary immunizations were significantly associated with their vaccine use (Donadeu et al., 2019) suggest a preference for alternative funding options, maybe indicative of apprehensions over government finances or a desire for enhanced private-sector involvement in the provision of veterinary vaccines. Contrary to the current research findings, discovered that just 53.3% of farmers saw seminars and training sessions as beneficial (Chowdhury et al., 2023). A European survey indicated that 73% to 91% of dairy farmers consistently maintained records, underscoring regional differences in practices (Denis-Robichaud et al., 2019). Identifying the impediments hindering It is essential to provide training programs for farmers to participate in sessions and seminars to enhance these practices. Moreover, diverse strategies must be developed to engage and incentivize farmers in educational initiatives (Hamilton et al., 2019).

 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The impact of LSD on cattle productivity is well known among Bangladeshi farmers. However, their knowledge of disease symptoms, transmission, control, and economic losses is lacking. The research emphasizes the necessity for focused educational and awareness activities to close these differences. Farmers need comprehensive extension programs on biosecurity, vector management, and immunization to manage LSD. Increased access to cheap immunizations and structured disease management programs can further reduce LSD’s influence on cattle health and production. We also recommend establishing mobile veterinary clinics that offer affordable immunizations to deliver expert services directly to remote farming communities, designing female-inclusive training programs to ensure women farmers who often play key roles in livestock care are fully engaged, and developing community-based workshops that use local languages and culturally appropriate materials. Precise study on LSD epidemiology in Bangladesh is needed to inform policymaker and resource allocation to improve this disease prevention and control.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute provided financial support for this study. We are acknowledged to the Department of Livestock Services, Bangladesh for their support for data collection.

NOVELTY STATEMENTS

This study showing introduces several novelties in the field of LSD research including geographical diversity, in-depth biosecurity practices, focus on socio-economic factors, and identification of key barriers of LSD in Bangladesh, and offer valuable recommendations for improving disease management strategies in Bangladesh and similar regions.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization; Investigation; Supervision; Validation; Visualization, Editing: Mst. Parvin Mostari. Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; methodology and writing – original draft: Sadia Binte Sadrul. Data curation: Md Hafizur Rahman, Mohammad Nizamul Hoque Touhid. Funding acquisition; project administration; resources; supervision; validation; visualization; writing -review and editing: Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute. Investigation; Data curation; writing – review and editing; validation; visualization: Md Zulfekar Ali. Visualization; writing – review and editing: Kamrun Naher Papry, Rumana Khatun. Investigation; validation; writing – review and editing: Mohammad Saiful Islam. Investigation; Visualization; writing – review and editing: A.H.M. Saiful Islam.

Limitations

While this study offers valuable insights, several limitations should be acknowledged. We used purposive sampling to ensure we reached the most relevant farmers, but this approach carries the risk of selection bias, as it does not represent the broader population equally. The relatively small sample size and reliance on self-reported data may introduce recall or social desirability biases, potentially affecting the accuracy of responses. Additionally, because the study was cross-sectional, it captures only a moment in time and cannot establish cause-and-effect relationships. Our focus on a specific region also limits how far the findings can be generalized to other settings or populations. Lastly, although we tried to account for key influencing factors, there may still be unmeasured variables affecting the results. Future research could address these limitations by using larger, more diverse samples and longitudinal designs.

Ethics Statement

All participants provided their informed consent, ensuring their voluntary involvement, security of rights, and data confidentiality. Our commitment to responsible and ethical research techniques is demonstrated by the ethical approval and approval processes used in this study, which guarantee the participants’ welfare and well-being.

Data Availability Statement

The corresponding author will provide the data used in the current study upon reasonable request.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

REFERENCES

Abera A, Yirgu T, Uncha A (2021). Determinants of rural livelihood diversification strategies among Chewaka resettlers’ communities of southwestern Ethiopia. Agric. Food Secur., 10(1): 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-021-00305-w

Acharya KP, Subedi D (2020). First outbreak of lumpy skin disease in Nepal. Prev. Vet. Med., 102(4): 274-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13815

Acosta D, Ludgate N, McKune SL, Russo S (2022). Who has access to livestock vaccines? Using the social-ecological model and intersectionality frameworks to identify the social barriers to peste des petits ruminants vaccines in Karamoja, Uganda. Front. Vet. Sci., 9: 831752. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.831752

Ali MZ, Carlile G, Giasuddin M (2020). Impact of global climate change on livestock health: Bangladesh perspective. Open Vet. J., 10(2): 178-188. https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ovj.v10i2.7

Ali MZ, Giasuddin M (2020). Detection of an emerging novel sublineage Ind2001BD1 and lineage PanAsia of foot-and-mouth disease virus serotype O in cattle in Manikgonj district of Bangladesh, 2018. Open Vet. J., 10(3): 347-353. https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ovj.v10i3.14

Ali MZ, Islam E, Giasuddin M (2019). Outbreak investigation, molecular detection, and characterization of foot and mouth disease virus in the Southern part of Bangladesh. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res., 6(3): 346-354. https://doi.org/10.5455/javar.2019.f353

Ali MZ, Sana S, Sheikh AA, Maheen Z (2022). Molecular characterization of toxigenic aspergillus flavus isolated from sick broiler lungs and risk factors analysis. Pak. Vet. J., 42(2): 190-200. https://dx.doi.org/10.29261/pakvetj/2022.037

Ali MZ, Hasan B (2018). Follow up of maternally derived antibodies titer against economically important viral diseases of chicken. Poult. Sci. J., 6(2): 149-154. https://doi.org/10.22069/psj.2018.15213.1340

Ali MZ, Islam MM (2021). Characterization of β-lactamase and quinolone resistant Clostridium perfringens recovered from broiler chickens with necrotic enteritis in Bangladesh. Iranian J. Vet. Res., 22(1):48. https://doi.org/10.22099/ijvr.2020.36848.5376

Amemiya Y, Inoue S, Maeda KNishiura H (2023). Epidemiological associations between rabies vaccination and dog owner characteristics. Vaccines, 11(2): 352. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11020352

Areru HA, Dangisso MH, Lindtjørn B (2022). Large local variations in the use of health services in rural southern Ethiopia: An ecological study. PLoS Global Public Health, 2(5): 0000087. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000087

Asfaw A, Lulekal E, Bekele T, Debella A, Debebe E, Sisay B (2022). Medicinal plants used to treat livestock ailments in Ensaro district, North Shewa Zone, Amhara regional state, Ethiopia. BMC Vet. Res., 18(1): 235. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-022-03320-6

Asfaw DM (2021). Analysis of technical efficiency of smallholder tomato producers in Asaita district, Afar National Regional State, Ethiopia. PLoS One, 16(9): e0257366. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257366

Azbel-Jackson L, Heffernan C, Gunn G, Brownlie J (2018). Exploring, the role of voluntary disease schemes on UK farmer bio-security behaviours: Findings from the Norfolk-Suffolk Bovine Viral Diarrhoea control scheme. PLoS One, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179877

Bary MA, Ali MZ, Chowdhury S, Mannan A, Nur e Azam M, Moula MM, Bhuiyan ZA, Shaon MTW, Hossain MA (2018). Prevalence and molecular identification of haemoprotozoan diseases of cattle in Bangladesh. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci., 6(4): 176-182. https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.aavs/2018/6.4.176.182

Bhanuprakash V, Indrani BK, Hosamani M, Singh RK (2006). The current status of sheep pox disease. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 29(1): 27-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cimid.2005.12.001

Blacksell SD, Siengsanan-Lamont J, Kamolsiripichaiporn S, Gleeson LJ, Windsor PA (2019). A history of FMD research and control programmes in Southeast Asia: lessons from the past informing the future. Epidemiol. Infect., 147: e171. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0950268819000578

Brennan ML, Christley RM (2013). Cattle producers’ perceptions of biosecurity. BMC Vet. Res., 9: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-9-71

Can MF, Altuğ N (2014). Socioeconomic implications of biosecurity practices in small-scale dairy farms. Vet. Q., 34(2): 67-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/01652176.2014.951130

Chambers MA, Graham SP, La Ragione RM (2016). Challenges in veterinary vaccine development and immunization. Vaccine Design: Methods Protoc., 2: 3-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3389-1_1

Chowdhury T, Ahmed J, Hossain MT, Roy MC, Ashik‐Uz‐Zaman M, Uddin MN, Rahman MM, Kabir MG, Hossain FMA (2023). Knowledge, attitudes and biosecurity practices among the small‐scale dairy farmers in Sylhet district, Bangladesh. Vet. Med. Sci., 9(5): 2221-2229. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.1199

Cochran WG (1977). Sampling Techniques (3rd edition). John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Denis-Robichaud J, Kelton DF, Bauman CA, Barkema HW, Keefe GP, Dubuc J (2019). Canadian dairy farmers’ perception of the efficacy of biosecurity practices. J. Dairy Sci., 102(11): 10657-10669. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-16312

Donadeu M, Nwankpa N, Abela-Ridder B, Dungu B (2019). Strategies to increase adoption of animal vaccines by smallholder farmers with focus on neglected diseases and marginalized populations. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis., 3(2): 0006989. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0006989

Dubie T, Dagnew B, Hamid M, Bizuayehu F, Fentahun G (2022). Seroprevalence and associated risk factors of pox infection among sheep and goats in selected districts of Afar region. Vet. Med. Sci., 8(12): 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12394

Fjeldaas T, Knappe-Poindecker M, Bøe KE, Larssen RB (2014). Water footbath, automatic flushing, and disinfection to improve the health of bovine feet. J. Dairy Sci., 97(5): 2835-2846. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7531

Gambo P, Maguda AS, Adole JA, Dyek DY, Ifende VI, Bot C, Adedeji AJ (2018). A survey of viral diseases of livestock characterized by skin lesions in Kanam Local Government Area of Plateau State, Nigeria. Niger. Vet. J., 39(3): 250-262. https://doi.org/10.4314/nvj.v39i3.8

Giasuddin M, Yousuf MA, Hasan M, Rahman MH, Hassan MZ, Ali MZ (2019). Isolation and molecular identification of Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) virus from infected cattle in Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Livestock Res., 26(1-2): 15-20. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjlr.v26i1-2.49933

Girma A, Workineh C, Bekele A, Tefera D, Gelana H, Gebisa D, Chalchisa T, Pal M (2022). Assessment of farmers knowledge and Attitude on vaccination of livestock and its implications in Ejere district of West Shewa Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. Acta Sci. Microbiol., 5: 03–11. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2024.1435-1448

Givens MD (2018). Risks of disease transmission through semen in cattle. Animals, 12(s1): 15-171. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1751731118000708

Gizaw S, Woldehanna M, Anteneh H, Ayledo G, Awol F, Gebreyohannes G, Gebremedhin B, Wieland B (2021). Animal health service delivery in crop-livestock and pastoral systems in Ethiopia. Front. Vet. Sci., 8: 601878. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.601878

Habiyaremye AD, Maziya M, Chaminuka PD, Mdlulwa Z (2017). Smallholder livestock farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, practices and perceptions towards vaccinations: The case of five provinces in South Africa. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11910/13581

Hamilton L, Evans N, Allcock J (2019). “I don’t go to Meetings”: understanding farmer perspectives on bovine TB and biosecurity training. Vet. Rec., 184(13): 410-410. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.104995

Hatami Z, Laven RA, Jafari-Gh S, Moazez-Lesko M, Soleimani P, Jafari-Gh A, Eila N, Yadi J, Sinafar M (2022). Factors Affecting the Perception and Practice of Iranian Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Pastoralists in Regard to Biosecurity Practices in Sheep and Goat Farms: A Cross-Sectional and Prospective Study. Ruminants, 2(1): 54-73. https://doi.org/10.3390/ruminants2010003

Hoelzer K, Bielke L, Blake DP, Cox E, Cutting SM, Devriendt B, Erlacher-Vindel E, Goossens E, Karaca K, Lemiere S, Metzner M (2018). Vaccines as alternatives to antibiotics for food producing animals. Part 2: new approaches and potential solutions. Vet. Res., 49: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-018-0560-8

Hopker A, Pandey N, Bartholomew R, Blanton A, Hopker S, Dhamorikar A, Goswami J, Marsland R, Metha P, Sargison N (2021). Livestock vaccination programme participation among smallholder farmers on the outskirts of National Parks and Tiger Reserves in the Indian states of Madhya Pradesh and Assam. PLoS One, 16(8): 0256684. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256684

Jafari-Gh A, Laven RA, Eila N, Yadi J, Hatami Z, Soleimani P, Jafari-Gh S, Lesko MM, Sinafar M, Heidari E (2020). Transboundary and infectious diseases of small ruminants: Knowledge, attitude, and practice of nomadic and semi-nomadic pastoralists in northern Iran. Small Ruminant Res., 183: 106039. https://doi.org/10.3390/ruminants2010003

Jost C, Mariner JC, Roeder PL, Sawitri E, Macgregor-Skinner GJ (2007). Participatory epidemiology in disease surveillance and research. Sci. Tech. Rev., 26(3): 537-49.

Kalam MA, Rahman MS, Alim MA, Shano S, Afrose S, Jalal FA, Akter S, Khan SA, Islam MM, Uddin MB, Islam A (2022). Knowledge, attitudes, and common practices of livestock and poultry veterinary practitioners regarding the AMU and AMR in Bangladesh. J. Antibiot., 11(1): 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11010080

Kayesh MEH, Hussan MT, Hashem MA, Eliyas M, Anower AM (2020). Lumpy skin disease virus infection: An emerging threat to cattle health in Bangladesh. Hosts Viruses, 7(4): 97. https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.hv/2020/7.4.97.108

Khokon MSI, Azizunnesa M, Islam MM, Chowdhury KB, Rahman ML, Ali MZ (2017). Effect of mastitis on post-partum conception of cross bred dairy cows in Chittagong district of Bangladesh. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res., 4(2): 155-160. https://doi.org/10.5455/javar.2017.d203

Lindahl JF, Young J, Wyatt A, Young M, Alders R, Bagnol B, Kibaya A, Grace D (2019). Do vaccination interventions have effects? A study on how poultry vaccination interventions change smallholder farmer knowledge, attitudes, and practice in villages in Kenya and Tanzania. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 51: 213-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-018-1679-3

Makita K, Steenbergen E, Haruta L, Hossain S, Nakahara Y, Tamura Y, Watanabe T, Kadowaki H, Asakura S (2020). Quantitative understanding of the decision-making process for farm biosecurity among Japanese livestock farmers using the KAP-capacity framework. Front. Vet. Sci., 7: 614. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00614

Mat B, Arikan MS, Akin AC, Çevrimli MB, Yonar H, Tekindal MA (2021). Determination of production losses related to lumpy skin disease among cattle in Turkey and analysis using SEIR epidemic model. BMC Vet. Res. 17:1-0. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-021-02983-x

McKune S, Serra R, Touré A (2021). Gender and intersectional analysis of livestock vaccine value chains in Kaffrine, Senegal. PLoS One, 16(7): 0252045. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252045

Mutua E, de Haan N, Tumusiime D, Jost C, Bett B (2019). A qualitative study on gendered barriers to livestock vaccine uptake in Kenya and Uganda and their implications on Rift Valley Fever control. Vaccines, 7(3): 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines7030086

Nuvey FS, Fink G, Hattendorf J, Mensah GI, Addo KK, Bonfoh B, Zinsstag J (2023). Access to vaccination services for priority ruminant livestock diseases in Ghana: Barriers and determinants of service utilization by farmers. Prev. Vet. Med., 215: 105919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2023.105919

Ochieng J, Owuor G, Bebe BO (2012). Determinants of adoption of management interventions in indigenous chicken production in Kenya. Afr. J. Agric. Resour. Econ., 7(1): 39-50.

Ochwo S, VanderWaal K, Munsey A, Nkamwesiga J, Ndekezi C, Auma E, Mwiine FN (2019). Seroprevalence and risk factors for lumpy skin disease virus seropositivity in cattle in Uganda. BMC Vet. Res., 15: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1983-9

Omondi I, Galiè A, Teufel N, Loriba A, Kariuki E, Baltenweck I (2022). Women’s empowerment and livestock vaccination: evidence from Peste des Petits ruminants vaccination interventions in northern Ghana. J. Anime Manga Stud., 12(6): 717. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12060717

Pritchard K, Wapenaar W, Brennan ML (2015). Cattle veterinarians’ awareness and understanding of biosecurity. Vet. Rec., 176(21): 546. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.102899

Rahman AA, Islam SS, Sufian MA, Talukder MH, Ward MP, Martínez-López B (2020). Foot-and-mouth disease space-time clusters and risk factors in cattle and buffalo in Bangladesh. Pathogens, 9(6): 423. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9060423

Robi DT, Bogale A, Temteme S, Aleme M, Urge B (2023). Evaluation of livestock farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding the use of veterinary vaccines in Southwest Ethiopia. Vet. Med. Sci., 9(6): 2871-2884. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.1290

Sander VA, Sánchez López EF, Mendoza Morales L, Ramos Duarte VA, Corigliano MG, Clemente M (2020). Use of veterinary vaccines for livestock as a strategy to control foodborne parasitic diseases. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol., 10: 288. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2020.00288

Sanz-Bernardo B, Haga IR, Wijesiriwardana N, Basu S, Larner W, Diaz AV, Langlands Z, Denison E, Stoner J, White M, Sanders C (2021). Quantifying and modeling the acquisition and retention of lumpy skin disease virus by hematophagus insects reveals clinically but not subclinically affected cattle are promoters of viral transmission and key targets for control of disease outbreaks. Virol. J., 95(9): 10-1128.

Seifu K, Muluneh A, Getachew Y, Jibril Y, Negussie H (2023). Epidemiological study and dairy farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices on foot and mouth disease in central Ethiopia. Heliyon, 9(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15771

Selim A, Manaa E, Khater H (2021). Seroprevalence and risk factors for lumpy skin disease in cattle in Northern Egypt. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 53(3): 350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-021-02786-0

Serra R, Ludgate N, Fiorillo Dowhaniuk K, McKune SL, Russo S (2022). Beyond the gender of the livestock holder: learnings from intersectional analyses of PPR vaccine value chains in Nepal, Senegal, and Uganda. J. Anime Manga Stud., 12(3): 241. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030241

Smith SM, George Z, Duncan CG, Frey DM (2022). Opportunities for expanding access to veterinary care: lessons from COVID-19. Front. Vet. Sci., 9: 804794. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.804794

Tufa TB, Regassa F, Amenu K, Stegeman JA, Hogeveen H (2023). Livestock producers’ knowledge, attitude, and behavior (KAB) regarding antimicrobial use in Ethiopia. Front. Vet. Sci., 10: 1167847. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1167847

Tuppurainen E, Dietze K, Wolff J, Bergmann H, Beltran-Alcrudo D, Fahrion A, Lamien CE, Busch F, Sauter-Louis C, Conraths FJ, De Clercq K (2021). Vaccines and vaccination against lumpy skin disease. Vaccines, 9(10): 1136. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9101136

Williams S, Endacott I, Ekiri AB, Kichuki M, Dineva M, Galipo E, Alexeenko V, Alafiatayo R, Mijten E, Varga G, Cook AJ (2022). Barriers to vaccine use in small ruminants and poultry in Tanzania. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res., 89(1): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.4102/ojvr.v89i1.2007

WOAH (2024). Chapter 3.4.12. Lumpy Skin Disease.