Vaccine Effectiveness Against Lumpy Skin Disease in District Dir, Lower Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

Shakir Ullah*, Lubna Shakir2, Rahid Khan3, Nazli Rahid4, Falaknaz4, Mohammad Sohail4 and Sajid Ali4

1State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany (LSEB), Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, 100000; 2Department of Botany, Government Post Graduate College Timergara Dir Lower, 18000, Pakistan; 3Center for Agriculture Resources and Research, Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences; 4Department of Botany, Garden Campus, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan, Mardan 23200, Pakistan.

Editor | Muhammad Abubakar, National Veterinary Laboratories, Park Road, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Received | August 02, 2025; Accepted | October 20, 2025; Published | December 18, 2025

*Correspondence | Shakir Ullah, State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany (LSEB), Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, 100000; Email: [email protected]

Citation | Ullah, S., L. Shakir, R. Khan, N. Rahid, Falaknaz, M. Sohail and S. Ali. 2025. Vaccine effectiveness against lumpy skin disease in district Dir, Lower Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Veterinary Sciences: Research and Reviews, 11(2): 223-238.

DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.vsrr/2025/11.2.223.238

Keywords | Lumpy skin disease, Vaccine effectiveness, Cross-sectional study, Vaccination strategies, Dosage determination, Side effects

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), a viral disease of cattle caused by Capripoxvirus, has recently spread across Pakistan, producing serious economic losses (Givens, 2018; Tuppurainen et al., 2017). The disease leads to severe emaciation, reduced milk production, infertility, abortions, and, in some cases, death. Infected animals may also suffer from permanent skin damage, decreasing their commercial value (Tuppurainen et al., 2011; Khan et al., 2025). According to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) Livestock Department, by the end of July 2022, around 13,856 cattle had been infected with LSD in KPK alone, with mortality rates ranging from 1–5% (Tuppurainen and Oura, 2012).

Historically, LSD was first reported in Zambia in 1929 and has since spread widely. It became endemic in many African countries, including Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Kenya, where the virus was first isolated in 1957 (Sprygin et al., 2019). In the 1990s, it spread to the Middle East, affecting countries such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Syrian Arab Republic (Carn, 1993). In 2015, Europe reported its first cases in Greece, followed by Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia, largely linked to animal movement and contaminated vaccines (Capstick and Coackley, 1961). In Asia, LSD was first documented in India in 2019, beginning in Maharashtra and later affecting Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh (Elhaig et al., 2017; Ullah et al., 2018). That same year, Pakistan confirmed its first cases (OIE, 2020). Since then, the disease has spread rapidly across the country, causing widespread economic disruption for farmers and livestock traders (Gupta et al., 2020; Ullah et al., 2023).

Pakistan, with the world’s second-largest cattle population, is highly vulnerable to the impact of LSD. The livestock population includes 49.6 million cattle and 41.2 million buffaloes, increasing annually by 3.1 million and 1.2 million, respectively (Imran et al., 2022). Livestock is the largest subsector of Pakistan’s agriculture, contributing Rs. 1466 billion to the national GDP (Von Backstrom, 1945). Around 8 million households rely on the cattle trade for 35–40% of their income (Thomas and Mare, 1945; Diesel, 1949). The outbreak has reduced productivity, raised prices of meat and milk, and disrupted exports due to trade restrictions (Ali and Obeid, 1977). These setbacks, combined with Pakistan’s fragile economy, pose long-lasting challenges for rural livelihoods and the national economy (Tuppurainen and Oura, 2012; Ullah et al., 2024).

Transmission of LSD is complex. The primary route is mechanical transmission via vectors such as mosquitoes and ticks, though direct contact between animals and contaminated equipment, bedding, or feed also plays a role (Kumar, 2011; Tageldin et al., 2014; Fayez and Ahmed, 2011). The virus may also be carried in semen, spreading through mating or artificial insemination (Al Ali et al., 2013; Shimshony and Economides, 2006; Sherrylin et al., 2013). Vector ecology, shaped by climate, vegetation, and wildlife populations, affects transmission dynamics (Tageldin et al., 2014). In addition, human activities can inadvertently spread the virus when infected cattle are handled without biosecurity measures, enabling contamination of clothing, footwear, or equipment and creating new infection clusters (El-Nahas et al., 2011).

The emergence and rapid spread of LSD in Pakistan, a country with deep dependence on livestock for food security and economic stability, underscores the urgent need for effective control and prevention measures. Among these, vaccination plays a pivotal role; evaluating vaccine effectiveness is essential for disease management (Lamien et al., 2011; Irshad et al., 2025). Figure 1 shows the stages of lumpy skin disease in animals. It presents the disease progression and recovery. The figure also illustrates the modes of transmission. This helps in understanding how the disease spreads and develops.

 

Poxviruses are large, complex, linear, enveloped, double-stranded DNA viruses with genome sizes ranging from 130 to 360 kb (Baldacchino et al., 2013). They belong to the family Poxviridae, which is divided into two subfamilies: Entomopoxvirinae, infecting invertebrates, and Chordopoxvirinae, infecting vertebrates (g (Annandale et al., 2013; Lubinga et al., 2015). The Chordopoxvirinae subfamily comprises 18 genera, including Orthopoxvirus, Parapoxvirus, Avipoxvirus, Capripoxvirus, Leporipoxvirus, Suipoxvirus, Molluscipoxvirus, Cervipoxvirus, Crocodylidpoxvirus, Yatapoxvirus, Cent poxvirus, Macropopoxvirus, Mustelpoxvirus, Oryzopoxvirus, Pteropopoxvirus, Salmonpoxvirus, and Vespertilionpoxvirus (Murphy et al., 2008). Within the Chordopoxvirinae subfamily, several genera are of particular importance to livestock ruminants, with some viruses capable of infecting the same host species, thus complicating clinical diagnosis (Tulman et al., 2001; Bhanuprakash et al., 2006; Al-Salihi, 2014). These include the genus Capripoxvirus, which consists of goat pox virus (GTPV), sheeppox virus (SPPV), and lumpy skin disease virus (LSDV), as well as the genus Parapoxvirus, which includes orf virus (ORFV), pseudo cowpox virus (PCPV), and bovine papular stomatitis virus (BPSV) (Mcfadden, 2005).

In clinical practice, early-stage infections and mild cases are often difficult to differentiate, even for experienced veterinarians (Tulman et al., 2001; Zare, 2010). Therefore, laboratory confirmation is essential. Samples from suspected animals should be collected and tested using rapid and highly sensitive molecular techniques, such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which allows accurate detection and differentiation of true LSD cases from other poxvirus infections (y (Sprygin et al., 2018a; Ullah et al., 2018d). Figure 2 illustrates the clinical signs and symptoms of lumpy skin disease in animals, showing the characteristic lesions, nodules, and other observable effects of the infection.

 

Vaccination represents the cornerstone of efforts to prevent and control lumpy skin disease (LSD) (Afonso et al., 2012; Fagbo et al., 2014; Lefkowitz et al., 2018). However, its application varies considerably worldwide, influenced not only by differing epidemiological contexts but also by socio-economic conditions and strategic objectives of control programs (Sanz-Bernardo et al., 2020). Vaccines aim to replicate viral antigens and stimulate protective immunity without causing the disease itself. Depending on the local situation, various vaccination strategies are employed: Mass vaccination in endemic regions, ring vaccination around outbreak epicenters, and targeted vaccination of high-risk populations (Mulatu and Feyisa, 2018).

Currently available vaccines are based on either live attenuated or inactivated virus strains. While these vaccines have proven effective, the use of unauthorized or substandard vaccines poses significant risks. Such vaccines may be mislabeled, have unknown titers, be diluted, or contaminated with adventitious pathogens (El-Kenawy and El Tholoth, 2010). Additionally, improper storage and expired vials further compromise vaccine safety and effectiveness (Coetzer and Tuppurainen, 2004). These risks highlight the urgent need for swift, large-scale vaccination campaigns in cattle and buffalo populations, utilizing high-quality, approved vaccines with demonstrated efficacy (Babiuk et al., 2008). This review considers the vaccines currently available against LSD and the strategies applied in endemic and high-risk regions (Sharif, 2019). Building upon this background, the present research focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of vaccines from different manufacturers, vaccination strategies, and associated risks as implemented in District Dir Lower, Pakistan.

Materials and Methods

This study employed a cross-sectional research design to evaluate the effectiveness of vaccines used against Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) among veterinary professionals working in District Dir Lower, Pakistan. The study was carried out over two months, from May to June 2023 (Al-Salihi, 2014). The cross-sectional approach was chosen because it allows for the collection of data at a single point in time, offering a practical and efficient method to capture both the experiences and perspectives of veterinary workers regarding LSD vaccination strategies (Tuppuraine et al., 2005).

Study setting and design

The study was conducted across veterinary hospitals, dispensaries, and livestock centers located in the District Dir Lower. The study population included a range of veterinary professionals who were actively engaged in vaccination campaigns or the treatment of LSD cases (Sanz-Bernardo et al., 2020). These professionals included veterinary doctors, veterinary assistants, technicians, technologists, and allied healthcare staff. This diversity in professional roles allowed for a broader understanding of vaccination practices and challenges (Davies et al., 1971; Ullah et al., 2018c). A structured, closed-ended questionnaire was developed to ensure uniformity of responses and to facilitate statistical analysis. The questionnaire was divided into three distinct sections:

Section A (demographic information): Collected data on age, gender, professional role, qualification, and years of experience.

Section B (knowledge): Assessed participants’ understanding of LSD, its transmission, symptoms, and preventive measures.

Section C (vaccination practices and effectiveness): Explored practical aspects of vaccination, such as the number of animals vaccinated, vaccine types used, observed side effects, and perceived effectiveness of vaccines. This structured format ensured that the study captured both background characteristics and practical insights into LSD management (Bowden et al., 2008; Heine et al., 1999; Mangana-Vougiouka et al., 1999; Orlova et al., 2006; Tuppurainen et al., 2005; Zheng et al., 2007).

Study area and sample size

The study was conducted in District Dir Lower, a region with active livestock farming and significant reliance on cattle and buffalo rearing for livelihood. The sample size was calculated using a statistical software calculator, ensuring that the study included a sufficient number of respondents to achieve reliable results (Lamien et al., 2011). A total of 90 veterinary professionals were included in the sample. The respondents were selected from various hospitals, dispensaries, and veterinary centers across the district to ensure representativeness. This approach allowed for the inclusion of professionals with varying levels of expertise, educational backgrounds, and experience in LSD management (Babiuk et al., 2008).

Data collection procedure

Data collection was performed using closed-ended questionnaires distributed to veterinary staff at their respective workplaces. The questionnaires were designed in simple and clear language to facilitate accurate responses. Before distribution, the tool was pre-tested on a small group of professionals to ensure clarity and reliability (Khan et al., 2021). The questionnaires collected information on the number of LSD cases treated, the types of vaccines used, mortality rates observed post-vaccination, and any reported side effects. Respondents were also asked to provide insights into vaccination strategies they followed, such as the frequency of vaccination, dosage determination, and their personal assessment of vaccine efficacy (Capstick, 1962; Capstick and Coackley, 1961; Brenner et al., 2009). Additionally, field visits were conducted to hospitals and dispensaries, ensuring that responses were gathered from a range of settings, including government and private facilities.

Statistical analysis

All collected data were entered into SPSS version 22 for analysis. Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, and means were used to summarize demographic information and vaccination practices. Quantitative data: Presented in the form of numbers and percentages, with results summarized using bar charts and pie charts for visualization. Qualitative data: Insights into causes of mortality, challenges in vaccination, and observations of vaccine side effects were analyzed descriptively to highlight patterns (Alemayehu et al., 2013; Babiuk et al., 2008; Sajid et al., 2012; Sevi and Dogan, 2017; Asif et al., 2025; Ullah et al., 2018e). Vaccine effectiveness: Mortality rates associated with different vaccines were calculated to evaluate relative performance. Comparisons across professional groups were made to identify variations in vaccination knowledge and practices. This analytical approach provided both numerical clarity and contextual understanding of vaccine effectiveness. For graph formation, we used R version 3.4.

Results

The study analyzed responses from 90 veterinary professionals through structured questionnaires, providing a comprehensive overview of Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) vaccination practices and perspectives in District Dir Lower.

Demographic characteristics of participants

The participants represented a wide range of professional roles. The largest group consisted of veterinary assistants (35.56%), followed by veterinary technicians (22.22%), veterinary technologists (18.89%), doctors of veterinary medicine (DVMs, 14.44%), and individuals in other positions (8.89%). This distribution demonstrates the inclusion of both frontline field staff and highly trained veterinarians, ensuring diverse insights into LSD vaccination practices.

Experience levels varied considerably, with 12.22% having less than 1 year of experience, 35.56% between 1–5 years, 27.78% between 6–10 years, 14.44% between 11–15 years, and 10% with more than 16 years of experience. This range reflects a balance between fresh graduates, mid-career professionals, and senior staff with long-term expertise.

In terms of qualifications, Veterinary Technicians comprised the largest proportion (43.33%), followed by Veterinary Assistants (30%), Veterinary Technologists (20%), and other qualifications (6.67%). This academic diversity highlights the involvement of professionals with varied levels of technical training. Importantly, 100% of respondents reported direct involvement in the treatment of LSD cases, confirming a high degree of engagement and first-hand experience with the disease (Ullah et al., 2018f).

Vaccination practices

The number of animals vaccinated by participants varied widely, reflecting differences in workload and resources. The distribution was as follows: 1–10 animals: 41.11%, 11–20 animals: 17.78%, 21–30 animals: 24.44%, 31–40 animals: 10% and more than 40 animals: 6.67%. This variation suggests that while some professionals engaged in small-scale vaccination efforts, others were involved in vaccinating larger herds.

Vaccine effectiveness and mortality rates

The perceived effectiveness of vaccines was assessed by reported mortality rates among vaccinated animals. Significant differences were observed:

Lumpy Vac (South African): 10.78% mortality, LSD N Doll: 25.49% mortality, and Lumpy Vac (Turkish): 81.37% mortality. These findings suggest substantial variation in vaccine efficacy, with the South African Lumpy Vac performing far better than the Turkish strain.

Dosage determination and frequency

Participants reported using different methods to determine dosage and vaccination frequency: single dose: 32.22%, twice: 11.11%, depending on animal health condition: 47.78% and other factors: 6.67%. Nearly half of the respondents adjusted dosage based on animal health, indicating a context-specific approach to vaccination.

Vaccination during the infection period

During periods of active LSD infection, vaccination efforts were reported at varying scales: 1–5 animals (16.67%), 6–10 animals (3.33%), 11–15 animals (1.11%), and 16–20 animals (0%). This reflects limited vaccination activity during outbreaks, likely due to challenges in controlling the spread of infection once animals became symptomatic.

Side effects of vaccines

A majority of respondents (80%) reported observing common side effects following vaccination, while 20% did not observe any adverse reactions. Reported side effects were generally mild and manageable, but contributed to concerns about vaccine tolerance.

Recommended vaccines

When asked which vaccine they recommended for LSD prevention, respondents indicated: Lumpy Vac (South African): 78.89%, LSD N Doll: 12.22% and Lumpy Vac (Turkish): 8.89% these preferences align with reported mortality outcomes, with the South African vaccine being the most trusted.

Vaccine efficacy across animal species

A minority of participants (17.78%) noted differences in vaccine efficacy across different animal species, while the majority (82.22%) observed no such variation. This indicates that, in most cases, professionals considered the vaccines to have a uniform effect across species. The demographic diversity and engagement of participants contribute to the richness of insights obtained from this study.

 

Table 1: Experience-wise results.

Valid	Frequency	Valid percent	Cumulative percent
Less than 1 year	11	12.22	12.22
1-5 years	32	35.55	47.77
6-10 years	25	27.77	75.55
11-15 years	13	14.44	90
More than 16 years	9	10	100
Total	90	100

 

The experience levels of the participants varied considerably, reflecting a balanced mix of early-career, mid-career, and senior professionals. As presented in Table 1, among the 90 respondents, 12.22% had less than one year of experience, while the largest group, 35.56%, reported between one and five years of experience. A further 27.78% had six to ten years of experience, 14.44% had between eleven and fifteen years, and 10% reported more than sixteen years in the field. The graphical representation in Figure 3 further illustrates this distribution, highlighting that the majority of respondents were relatively early in their careers, though a significant proportion also represented experienced professionals. This diverse range of experience provides a comprehensive perspective, combining the insights of both newly trained personnel and seasoned experts within the veterinary community of District Dir Lower.

 

Table 2: Qualification-wise results.

Valid	Frequency	Valid percent	Cumulative percent
Veterinary assistant	27	30	30
Veterinary technician	39	43.33	73.33
Veterinary technologist	18	20	93.33
Other	6	6.66	100
Total	90	100

 

The qualifications of the participating healthcare workers demonstrated notable diversity. As shown in Table 2 and Figure 4, the largest proportion of respondents were Veterinary Technicians (43.33%), followed by Veterinary Assistants (30%), and Veterinary Technologists (20%), while Other Qualifications accounted for 6.67% of participants. The graphical representation in Figure 4 illustrates this distribution, emphasizing the strong involvement of mid-level technical staff, complemented by the contributions of both assistants and technologists. This variation in qualifications ensured a wide range of perspectives, thereby enriching the study’s findings on vaccination practices and effectiveness against Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD).

 

Table 3: Position-wise result.

Valid	Frequency	Valid percent	Cumulative percent
Veterinary assistant	32	35.55	35.55
Veterinary technician	20	22.22	57.77
Veterinary technologist	17	18.88	76.66
DVM	13	14.44	91.11
Other	8	8.88	100
Total	90	100

 

 

The positions held by participants reflected the diverse professional structure of the veterinary workforce in District Dir Lower. As presented in Table 3, the largest group of respondents were Veterinary Assistants (35.56%), followed by Veterinary Technicians (22.22%), Veterinary Technologists (18.89%), and Doctors of Veterinary Medicine (DVMs, 14.44%), while Other Positions accounted for 8.89% of participants. The graphical representation in Figure 5 further illustrates this distribution, highlighting those veterinary assistants and technicians constituted the majority of respondents, while veterinarians and technologists contributed essential insights from their specialized expertise. This mix of positions ensured that the study captured perspectives from both field-level workers directly administering vaccines and higher-level professionals engaged in clinical decision-making and disease management.

 

Table 4: Determination of the appropriate dosage and frequency of vaccine.

Valid	Frequency	Valid percent	Cumulative percent
Once	29	32.22	32.95
Twice	10	11.11	44.31
Depends on animal health	43	47.77	93.18
Other	6	6.66	100
Total	88	97.77

 

 

The determination of appropriate vaccine dosage and frequency varied among healthcare workers, reflecting differences in professional judgment and field practices. As presented in Table 5 and illustrated in Figure 6, nearly half of the participants (47.78%) reported adjusting the dosage depending on the health status of the animal, indicating a flexible and case-specific approach to vaccination. Meanwhile, 32.22% administered the vaccine once, and 11.11% reported giving it twice. A smaller proportion (6.67%) based dosage decisions on other factors, such as herd size or outbreak conditions. This variation underscores the absence of a fully standardized vaccination protocol in the district and highlights the significant role of individual clinical assessment in guiding vaccine administration practices.

The study also examined vaccination activity during the infection period, revealing considerable variation in the number of animals vaccinated by healthcare workers. As shown in Table 6 and illustrated in Figure 7, the largest proportion of respondents (41.11%) reported vaccinating between 1 and 10 animals, while 17.78% vaccinated 11–20 animals. A further 24.44% vaccinated 21–30 animals, 10% vaccinated 31–40 animals, and only 6.67% reported vaccinating more than 40 animals during the infection period. This distribution indicates that most professionals engaged in small- to medium-scale vaccination efforts, likely due to resource constraints, disease spread dynamics, or caution in vaccinating during active outbreaks. The findings highlight both the immediate response to infection and the challenges in scaling up vaccination under outbreak conditions.

 

Table 6: Animals vaccinated during the infection period.

Valid	Frequency	Valid percent	Cumulative percent
1 to 5	15	16.66	78.94
6 to 10	3	3.33	94.73
11 to 15	1	1.11	100
16 - 20	0	0	100
Total	19	21.11

 

 

Table 5: Have you treated animals with Limpy skin disease in the past year.

Valid	Frequency	Valid percent	Cumulative percent
Yes	90	100	100
No	0	0	100
Total	90	100	0

 

The study also assessed the level of professional engagement in managing Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) within the district. As shown in Table 6 and illustrated in Figure 8, all participants (100%) reported involvement in the treatment of animals affected by LSD during the past year. This unanimous response highlights the widespread impact of the disease and underscores the active participation of healthcare workers in both treatment and vaccination processes. Such universal engagement reflects the seriousness of LSD in the region and emphasizes the essential role of veterinary professionals in controlling outbreaks and safeguarding livestock health.

 

Table 6: Which type of vaccine do you recommend as the most effective for preventing Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) in animals.

Valid	Frequency	Valid percent	Cumulative percent
1 to 10	37	41.11	41.11
11 to 20	16	17.77	58.88
21-30	22	24.44	83.33
31-40	9	10	93.33
more than 40	6	6.66	100
Total	90	100

 

The study further explored the recommendations of healthcare workers regarding the most effective vaccines for preventing Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) in animals. As presented in Table 7, veterinary professionals expressed varying preferences, reflecting their field experiences and perceptions of vaccine performance. In addition, the study examined the number of animals vaccinated by each healthcare worker. As shown in Figure 9, the majority of respondents (37%) reported vaccinating between 1 and 10 animals, while 16% vaccinated 11–20 animals. A further 22% vaccinated 21–30 animals, 9% vaccinated 31–40 animals, and 6% reported vaccinating more than 40 animals. This distribution demonstrates that most healthcare workers were engaged in small- to medium-scale vaccination campaigns, though a smaller proportion handled large-scale efforts. These findings highlight both the commitment of professionals in disease prevention and the variation in workload and capacity across the veterinary community.

 

Table 7: Mortality rate of each type of vaccine used.

Valid	Frequency	Valid percent	Cumulative percent
Lumpy Vac (South African)	11	10.78	9.166
LSD N Doll	26	25.49	30.83
Lumpy Vac (Turkey)	83	81.372	100
Total	120	117.6471

The study also assessed the mortality rates associated with different vaccines used against lumpy skin disease (LSD). As presented in Table 9 and illustrated in Figure 10, clear variations in effectiveness were observed among the available products. The Lumpy Vac (South African) vaccine showed the lowest mortality rate at 10.78%, indicating comparatively higher effectiveness in disease control. In contrast, the LSD N Doll vaccine had a higher mortality rate of 25.49%, while the Lumpy Vac (Turkish) vaccine demonstrated the highest mortality rate at 81.37%, suggesting limited effectiveness in field conditions. These findings highlight the critical importance of vaccine selection in managing LSD outbreaks, with the South African Lumpy Vac emerging as the most reliable option among those evaluated.

 

Table 8: Observed any differences in the efficacy of lumpy skin disease vaccines among different animal species.

Valid	Frequency	Valid percent	Cumulative percent
Yes	16	17.77	17.77
No	74	82.22	100
Total	90	100	0

 

 

The study also explored whether veterinary professionals observed differences in the efficacy of Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) vaccines across different animal species. As shown in Table 9 and illustrated in Figure 11, the majority of respondents (82.22%) reported no noticeable variation in vaccine efficacy between species. However, a smaller proportion (17.78%) indicated that they had observed differences in vaccine effectiveness across species. This finding suggests that while most professionals perceived the vaccines to provide consistent protection regardless of species, there remains a minority view that points to possible differences in immune response or vaccine performance in certain animal populations. These insights emphasize the need for further research to clarify whether vaccine efficacy is truly uniform across species or if subtle variations exist that could impact field-level vaccination outcomes.

 

Table 9: Common side effects of lumpy skin disease vaccines in animals, according to your experience.

Valid	Frequency	Valid percent	Cumulative percent
Yes	72	80	80
No	18	20	100
Total	90	100	0

 

 

The study also investigated the occurrence of side effects associated with Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) vaccines as experienced by veterinary professionals. As presented in Table 10 and illustrated in Figure 12, the majority of respondents (80%) reported observing common side effects in vaccinated animals, while 20% indicated that they did not observe any adverse reactions (Ullah and Shakir, 2023). These finding highlights that although LSD vaccines are widely used and generally effective, a significant proportion of healthcare workers have encountered side effects in the field. Such observations reinforce the importance of monitoring post-vaccination outcomes and developing clear guidelines for managing adverse reactions to ensure both animal safety and farmer confidence in vaccination programs.

Discussion

Vaccination remains the most efficient measure for controlling Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD). However, as noted by Sevik and Dogan (2017). Adverse effects associated with vaccination have not been systematically quantified under controlled field conditions. The findings of this study provide valuable insights into vaccination practices and the perspectives of veterinary professionals in District Dir Lower, contributing to a growing body of knowledge on LSD management (Gari et al., 2010).

The results confirm that available vaccine products vary significantly in terms of quality, efficacy, safety, side effects, and cost. These findings align with those (Tuppurainen and Oura, 2012), who highlighted the advantages and disadvantages of different live attenuated and inactivated vaccines, along with their associated risks and strategic applications. By evaluating both professional perspectives and practical outcomes, this study sheds light on the real-world effectiveness of vaccines and the challenges of implementation.

A key strength of this study lies in the diverse representation of veterinary roles, including Veterinary Assistants, Technicians, Technologists, and Doctors of Veterinary Medicine (DVMs). Such diversity provides a holistic perspective, underscoring the collaborative nature of disease control. Similar observations were reported by Alemayehu et al. (2013), Sajid et al. (2012), who emphasized the importance of multi-level professional engagement in vaccination campaigns.

The variation in vaccination strategies observed in this study reflects both opportunities and challenges in field practice. Issues such as inoculation failures, incorrect dosage determination, or inappropriate vaccination frequency can contribute to vaccine breakdowns, as also suggested by Khan et al. (2021). Importantly, nearly half of respondents reported tailoring vaccine administration to the health status of animals, reflecting a shift toward individualized veterinary care, which resonates with findings in domestic animal vaccination studies (Molla et al., 2017).

The reported mortality rates associated with different vaccines further emphasize the complexity of vaccine responses. The relatively low mortality associated with Lumpy Vac (South African), compared to higher rates with LSD N Doll and Lumpy Vac (Turkish), highlights the need for careful vaccine selection and quality control, consistent with the findings of Alemayehu et al. (2013), Babiuk et al. (2008), and Sajid et al. (2012). Such differences stress the importance of ensuring that only well-tested, high-quality vaccines are used in large-scale vaccination campaigns.

The study also documented vaccination practices during active infection periods. While this practice reflects an urgent response to contain outbreaks (Molla et al., 2017), the relatively low number of animals vaccinated during infection suggests possible challenges in timely intervention, logistical constraints, or cautious avoidance of potential vaccine complications (Subhan et al., 2024; Ullah et al., 2023). Another important finding was that 80% of participants reported observing side effects, underscoring the necessity of monitoring adverse reactions and developing strategies to mitigate them. Variability in vaccine recommendations, with the majority favoring Lumpy Vac (South African), reflects differences in perceived efficacy and professional preferences. Similar patterns of diverse vaccine recommendations have been observed in other livestock vaccination studies (Capstick and Coackley, 1961).

The study’s limitations, particularly its cross-sectional design and restriction to a single geographical district, limit the generalizability of the findings. Nevertheless, the insights obtained establish a strong foundation for further research. Future longitudinal studies could evaluate long-term vaccine performance and changes in professional practices over time. Additionally, expanding the study to include multiple regions of Pakistan would provide a more comprehensive national perspective (Alemayehu et al., 2013; Shakir et al., 2023a, b). Finally, the split in professional opinions regarding vaccine efficacy across species highlights the need for deeper investigation into potential immunological differences. While most respondents reported no observed variations, this may reflect limited experience with different species rather than true uniformity in vaccine effectiveness (Tuppurainen and Oura, 2012; Ullah et al., 2024). Overall, this study contributes to the growing literature on LSD prevention by highlighting professional perspectives, identifying gaps in vaccine performance, and stressing the importance of standardized protocols, effective monitoring, and high-quality vaccine use for sustainable disease control (Sevik and Dogan, 2017).

Conclusion

This study evaluated the effectiveness of vaccines against Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) among veterinary professionals in District Dir Lower, providing critical insights into vaccination practices, vaccine performance, and associated challenges. The findings revealed notable variations in vaccine efficacy, with the South African Lumpy Vac demonstrating comparatively lower mortality rates than other vaccines, while the Turkish strain showed limited effectiveness. Differences in dosage determination, frequency of administration, and the observation of side effects further underscore the complexity of vaccination practices in the field. The participation of professionals from diverse roles, including veterinary assistants, technicians, technologists, and Doctors of Veterinary Medicine (DVMs), ensured a holistic perspective, highlighting the widespread engagement of the veterinary community in disease management. The study also emphasized the importance of tailoring vaccination strategies to animal health and contextual factors, while reinforcing the need for standardized protocols to minimize failures and improve outcomes. Despite its limitations, including its cross-sectional design and restriction to a single district, the study provides a valuable foundation for future research. Expanding such investigations to broader geographical regions and adopting longitudinal approaches would enable a deeper understanding of long-term vaccine performance and evolving vaccination practices.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the District Director of Livestock (DDL), Dir Lower, for ethical approval and support, and all veterinary professionals who participated in the study.

Novelty Statement

This study is the first of its kind conducted in District Dir Lower, Pakistan, to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of different commercially available vaccines against Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) through the perspectives and practices of veterinary professionals. Unlike previous research that primarily focused on epidemiology or clinical manifestations, this study provides field-based evidence on vaccine performance, dosage determination, side effects, and professional preferences across a diverse veterinary workforce. The findings highlight critical variations in vaccine efficacy, particularly between South African, Turkish, and LSD N Doll vaccines, and underscore the importance of standardized vaccination protocols. By combining demographic insights with practical vaccination experiences, the study offers a holistic understanding of real-world disease management and establishes a foundation for improving LSD control strategies in Pakistan and similar endemic regions.

Author’s Contribution

Shakir Ullah: Conceptualization, study design, data analysis, manuscript drafting, and overall supervision.

Lubna Shakir: Literature review, data interpretation, and manuscript editing.

Rahid Khan: Data collection, statistical analysis, and results interpretation.

Nazli Rahid: Field coordination, data collection, and preliminary analysis.

Falaknaz: Data entry, validation, and assistance in manuscript preparation.

Mohammad Sohail: Support in fieldwork, data acquisition, and technical review.

Sajid Ali: Assistance in data collection, visualization, and proofreading of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Ethical approval

Before the commencement of data collection, ethical clearance was obtained from the office of the District Director of Livestock (DDL), Dir Lower. Ethical considerations were strictly observed throughout the study (Tuppurainen et al., 2017). Participation in the research was voluntary, and each participant was informed about the purpose and objectives of the study. Respondents were assured of complete confidentiality and that their personal information would not be disclosed. Informed consent was obtained verbally and in writing before participation (Awadalla and Hassan, 2011; Gibbs, 2021; KC et al., 2020; Mathan, 2011; OIE, 2017; Spickler, 2008). Ethical approval was obtained from the District Director of Livestock (DDL), Dir Lower. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was secured with full assurance of confidentiality.

Generative AI and AI-assisted technology statement

During the preparation of this work, no generative artificial intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted technologies were used in the writing, editing, data analysis, or figure generation. All content was produced entirely by the authors.

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

Abutarbush, S.M., 2017. Lumpy skin disease (Knopvelsiekte, Pseudo Urticaria, Neethling Virus Disease, Exanthema Nodularis Bovis). In: J. Bayry (Ed.), Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases of livestock. Springer International Publishing. pp. 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47426-7_14

Afonso, P.P., Silva, P.M., Schnellrath, L.C., Jesus, D.M., Hu, J., Yang, Y., Renne, R., Attias, M., Condit, R.C., Moussatché, N. and Damaso, C.R., 2012. Biological characterization and next-generation genome sequencing of the unclassified Cotia virus SPAn232 (Poxviridae). J. Virol., 86: 5039–5054. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.07162-11

Alemayehu, G., Zewde, G. and Admassu, B., 2013. Risk assessments of lumpy skin diseases in Borena bull market chain and its implication for livelihoods and international trade. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 45: 1153–1159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-012-0340-9

Ali, B.H. and Obeid, H.M., 1977. Investigation of the first outbreak of Lumpy skin disease in the in the Sudan. Br. Vet. J., 1333: 184-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-1935(17)34140-4

Al Ali, M.N., Amin, T.T., Alrashid, A.A., Al-Agnam, A.A. and Al Sultan, A.A., 2013. Toxoplasmosis preventive behavior and related knowledge among Saudi pregnant women: an exploratory study. Glob. J. Health Sci., 5(5): 131. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v5n5p131

Al-Salihi, K., 2014. Lumpy skin disease: Review of literature. Mirr. Res. Vet. Sci. Anim., 3(3): 6-23. Annandale, C.H., Holm, D.E., Ebersohn, K. and Venter, E.H., 2013. Seminal transmission of lumpy skin disease virus in heifers. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 61(5): 443–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12045

Annandale, C.H., Holm, D.E., Ebersohn, K. and Venter, E.H., 2013. Seminal transmission of lumpy skin disease virus in heifers. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 61(5): 443–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12045

Asif, S., Nisar, M., Ullah, S. and Naeem, M., 2025. Impact of seed-borne mycoflora on mycotoxin accumulation: A threat to lentil genetic resources. Toxicon, pp. 108290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2025.108290

Awadalla, S.F. and Hassan, O.A., 2011. Incidence of lumpy skin disease among Egyptian cattle in Giza Governorate, Egypt. Vet. World, 4(4): 162–167. https://doi.org/10.5455/vetworld.2011.162-167

Babiuk, S., Bowden, T.R., Boyle, D.B., Wallace, D.B. and Kitching, R.P., 2008. Capripoxviruses: An emerging worldwide threat to sheep, goats and cattle. Transb. Emerg. Dis., 55(7): 263-272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1865-1682.2008.01043.x

Baldacchino, F., Muenworn, V., Desquesnes, M., Desoli, F., Charoenviriyaphap, T. and Duvallet, G., 2013. Transmission of pathogens by Stomoxys flies (Diptera, Muscidae): A review. Parasite, 20: 26. https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2013026

Bhanuprakash, V., Indrani, B.K., Hosamani, M. and Singh, R.K., 2006. The current status of sheep pox disease. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 29: 27–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cimid.2005.12.001

Bowden, T.R., Babiuk, S.L., Parkyn, G.R., Copps, J.S. and Boyle, D.B., 2008. Capripoxvirus tissue tropism and shedding: A quantitative study in experimentally infected sheep and goats. Virology, 371(2): 380-393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2007.10.002

Brenner, J., Bellaiche, M., Gross, E., Elad, D., Oved, Z., Haimovitz, M., Wasserman, A., Friedgut, O., Stram, Y., Bumbarov, V. and Yadin, H., 2009. Appearance of skin lesions in cattle populations vaccinated against lumpy skin disease: Statutory challenge. Vaccine, 27(10): 1500-1503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.01.020

Capstick, P.B. and Coackley, W., 1961. Protection of cattle against lumpy skin disease: I. Trials with a vaccine against neethling type infection. Res. Vet. Sci., 2(4): 362-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-5288(18)34940-3

Capstick, P.B.W., 1962. Lumpy skin disease the determination of the immune state of cattle by an intradermal test. Res. Vet. Sci., 3(3): 287-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-5288(18)34901-4

Carn, V.M., 1993. Control of capripoxvirus infections. Vaccine, 11(13): 1275-1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-410X(93)90094-E

Carn, V.M., Kitching, R.P., Hammond, J.M. and Chand, P., 1994. Use of a recombinant antigen in an indirect ELISA for detecting bovine antibody to capripoxvirus. J. Virol. Methods, 49(3): 285-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-0934(94)90143-0

Coetzer, J.A.W. and Tuppurainen, E., 2004. Lumpy skin disease. Infect. Dis. Livest., 2: 1268–1276.

Davies, F.G., Krauss, H., Lund, J. and Taylor, M., 1971. The laboratory diagnosis of lumpy skin disease. Res. Vet. Sci., 12(2): 123-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-5288(18)34204-8

Diesel, A.M., 1949. The epizootiology of lumpy skin disease in South Africa. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Veterinary Congress, London, U.K., pp. 492-500.

E Coetzer, J.A.W. and Tuppurainen, E., 2004. Lumpy skin disease. Infect. Dis. Livest., 2: 1268-1276.

Elhaig, M.M., Selim, A. and Mahmoud, M., 2017. Lumpy skin disease in cattle: Frequency of occurrence in a dairy farm and a preliminary assessment of its possible impact on Egyptian buffaloes. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res., 84(1): 1-6. https://doi.org/10.4102/ojvr.v84i1.1393.

El-Kenawy, A.A. and El-Tholoth, M.S., 2010. Sequence analysis of the attachment gene of lumpy skin disease and sheep poxviruses. Virol. Sin., 25(6): 409-416.3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12250-010-3150-0

El-Nahas, E.M., El-Habbaa, A.S., El-Bagoury, G.F. and Radwan, M.E.I., 2011. Isolation and identification of lumpy skin disease virus from naturally infected buffaloes at Kaluobia. Egypt. Glob. Vet., 7: 234–237.

Fagbo, S., Coetzer, J.A. and Venter, E.H., 2014. Seroprevalence of Rift Valley fever and lumpy skin disease in African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) in the Kruger National Park and Hluhluwei-Mfolozi park, South Africa. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc., 85: e1–e7. https://doi.org/10.4102/jsava.v85i1.1075

Fayez, A.S. and Ahmed, H.O., 2011. Incidence of lumpy skin disease among Egyptian cattle in Giza Governorate, Egypt. Vet. World, 4(4): 162- 167. https://doi.org/10.5455/vetworld.2011.162-167

Gari, G., Waret-Szkuta, A., Grosbois, V., Jacquiet, P. and Roger, F., 2010. Risk factors associated with observed clinical lumpy skin disease in Ethiopia. Epidemiol. Infect., 138: 1657–1666. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268810000506

Gibbs, P., 2021. Lumpy skin disease in Cattle. MSD Veterinary Manual. Givens, M.D., 2018. Review: Risks of disease transmission through semen in cattle. Animal, 12(S1): s165–s171. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118000708

Givens, B.E., 2018. Nanoparticle-based delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 genome-editing therapeutics. AAPS J., 20(6): 108. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-018-0254-7

Gupta, T., Patial, V., Bali, D., Angaria, S., Sharma, M. and Chahota, R., 2020. A review: Lumpy skin disease and its emergence in India. Vet. Res. Commun., 44(3): 111-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-020-09780-1

Heine, H.G., Stevens, M.P., Foord, A.J., Boyle, D.B., 1999. A capripoxvirus detection PCR and antibody ELISA based on the major antigen P32, the homolog of the vaccinia virus H3L gene. J. Immunol. Methods, 227(1-2): 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1759(99)00072-1

Imran, M., Hashmi, A.H., Khalique, F. and Iqbal, M.Z., 2022. Lumpy skin disease emerging problem in Pakistan. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1904208/v1

Irshad, A., Noreen, S., Sajid, U., Jamal, M., Iqbal, M.A., Ullah, S., Sabtain, T., Ullah, S., Ibañez-Arancibia, E., De Los Ríos-Escalante, P.R., Belkahia, H., Ben Said, M., Swelum, A.A., 2025. Molecular identification, risk factors’ assessment, and phylogenetic analysis of Toxoplasma gondii in goats from Malakand Division, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 49(21). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-025-10783-z

KC, G., Karki, S., Koirala, P., Upadhyaya, D., Regmi, B., and Pande, K., 2020. First report of Lumpy skin disease outbreak in cattle and buffaloes of Gandaki Province, Nepal. Authorea, pp. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985359.94775220

Khan, R., Rahid, N., Khadn, W., Shah, N., Shakir, L., Ghafoor, H., Abdullah, Ullah, S., 2025. Mitigation of salinity stress in maize (Zea mays L.) using the endophytic fungus GR7. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res., 31(2): 151-166.

Khan, Y.R., Ali, A., Hussain, K., Ijaz, M., Rabbani, A.H., Khan, R.L. and Sajid, H.A., 2021. A review: Surveillance of lumpy skin disease (LSD), a growing problem in Asia. Microb. Pathog., 158: 105050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2021.105050

Kumar, S.M., 2011. An outbreak of lumpy skin disease in a Holstein dairy herd in Oman: A clinical report. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 6: 851– 859.

Lamien, C.E., Lelenta, M., Goger, W., Silber, R., Tuppurainen, E., Matijevic, M., Luckins, A.G., Diallo, A., 2011. Real-time PCR method for simultaneous detection, quantitation and differentiation of capripoxviruses. J. Virol. Methods, 171(1): 134-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2010.10.014

Lamien, C.E., Le Goff, C., Silber, R., Wallace, D.B., Gulyaz, V., Tuppurainen, E., Madani, H., Caufour, P., Adam, T., El-Harrak, M., Luckins, A.G., Albina, E. and Diallo, A., 2011. Use of the Capripoxvirus homologue of Vaccinia virus 30 kDa RNA polymerase subunit (RPO30) gene as a novel diagnostic and genotyping target: Development of a classical PCR method to differentiate Goat poxvirus from Sheep poxvirus. Vet. Microbiol., 149: 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2010.09.038

Lefkowitz, E.J., Dempsey, D.M., Hendrickson, R.C., Orton, R.J., Siddell, S.G. and Smith, D.B., 2018. Virus taxonomy: The database of the international committee on taxonomy of viruses (ICTV). Nucl. Acids Res., 46: D708– D717. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx932

Lubinga, J.C., Clift, S.J., Tuppurainen, E.S.M., Stoltsz, W.H., Babiuk, S., Coetzer, J.A.W. and Venter, E.H., 2014. Demonstration of lumpy skin disease virus infection in Amblyomma hebraeum and Rhipicephalus appendiculatus ticks using immunohistochemistry. Ticks Tickb. Dis., 5: 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2013.09.010

Mangana-Vougiouka, O., Markoulatos, P., Koptopoulos, G., Nomikou, K., Bakandritsos, N., Papadopoulos, O., 1999. Sheep poxvirus identification by PCR in cell cultures. J. Virol. Methods, 77(1): 75-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-0934(98)00138-4

Mathan, K.S., 2011. An outbreak of lumpy skin disease in a holstein dairy herd in Oman: A clinical report. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 6(8): 851–859. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajava.2011.851.859

Mcfadden, G., 2005. Poxvirus tropism. Nat. Rev. Microbiol., 3: 201. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1099

Molla, W., de Jong, M M.C., Gari, G. and Frankena, K., 2017. Economic impact of lumpy skin disease and cost effectiveness of vaccination for the control of outbreaks in Ethiopia. Prevent. Vet. Med., 147: 100-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.09.003

Morris, J.P.A., 1931. Pseudo-urticaria. Northern Rhodesia Department of Animal Health, Annual Report 1930: 12.

Mulatu, E. and Feyisa, A., 2018. Review: Lumpy skin disease. J. Vet. Sci. Tech., 9(535): 1–8.

Murphy, F.A., Fauquet, C.M., Bishop, D., Ghabrial, S.A. and Summers, M.D., 2008. Virus taxonomy: Classification and nomenclature of viruses. Encycl. Virol., 140: 9–23.

OIE, Office International des Epizooties, 2017. Manual of diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals 2017. Chapter 2.4.13 Lumpy skin disease. Retrieved from http://www.oie. int/fileadmin/Home/ eng/Health

OIE, L.R., 2020. Migraine and risk of stroke. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, 91(6): 593–604.https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2019-321852

Orlova, E.S., Shcherbakov, A.V., Diev, V.I. and Zakharov, V.M., 2006. Differentiation of capripoxvirus species and strains by polymerase chain reaction. Mol. Biol., 40(1): 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0026893306010183

Sajid, A., Chaudhary, Z., Sadique, U., Maqbol, A., Anjum, A., Qureshi, M., Hassan, Z.U., Idress, M. and Shahid, M., 2012. Prevalence of goat poxdisease in Punjab province of Pakistan. J. Anim. Plant Sci., 22: 28–32.

Sanz-Bernardo, B., Haga, I.R., Wijesiriwardana, N., Hawes, P.C., Simpson, J., Morrison, L.R. and Beard, P.M., 2020. Lumpy skin disease is characterized by severe multifocal dermatitis with necrotizing fibrinoid vasculitis following experimental infection. Vet. Pathol., 57(3): 388-396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300985820913268

Sanz-Bernardo, B., Suckoo, R., Haga, I.R., Wijesiriwardana, N., Harvey, A., Basu, S., Larner, W., Rooney, S., Sy, V., Langlands, Z. and Denison, E., 2022. The acquisition and retention of lumpy skin disease virus by bloodfeeding insects is influenced by the source of virus, the insect body part, and the time since feeding. J. Virol., 96: e0075122. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.00751-22

Sevik, M. and Dogan, M., 2017. Epidemiological and molecular studies on lumpy skin disease outbreaks in Turkey during 2014–2015. Transb. Emerg. Dis., 64(4): 1268–1279. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12501

Sharif, S., 2019. Potential of using capripoxvirus vectored vaccines against arboviruses in sheep, goats, and cattle. Front. Vet. Sci., 6: 450. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00450

Shakir, L., Asif, S., Haq, A., Haq, S., Zada, K., Said, M., Sajid, M., Ullah, S., Ullah, R., 2023a. Phytochemical detection and medicinal studies of selected plants from war-affected areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. J. Agric. For. Res., 2(5).

Shakir, L., Ullah, S., Suhail, M., Ullah, R., 2023b. Phytochemical analysis, antipyretic and antifungal activities of Solanum nigrum L. Nat. J. Pharm. Sci., 3(2): 6–12.

Sharif, S., 2019. Potential of using capripoxvirus vectored vaccines against arboviruses in sheep, goats, and cattle. Front. Vet. Sci., 6: 450. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00450

Sharif, S., 2019. Potential of using capripoxvirus vectored vaccines against arboviruses in sheep, goats, and cattle. Front. Vet. Sci., 6: 450. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00450

Sherrylin, W., Ahmed E.I., Raffaele, M., Markos, T., Felix, N. and Eran, R., 2013. Emergence of lumpy skin disease in the Eastern Mediterranean Basin countries. Empres watch. Volume 29, November 2013. © FAO 2013.

Shimshony, A. and Economides, P., 2006. Disease prevention and preparedness for animal health emergencies in the Middle East. Revue scientifique et technique-office international des Épizooties, 25(1): 253-269. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.25.1.1667

Spickler, A.R., 2008. Lumpy skin disease. Sprygin, A., Artyuchova, E., Babin, Y., Prutnikov, P., Kostrova, E., Byadovskaya, O. and Kononov, A., 2018a. Epidemiological characterization of lumpy skin disease outbreaks in Russia in 2016. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 65: 1514–1521. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12889

Sprygin, A., Pestova, Y., Prutnikov, P. and Kononov, A., 2018a. Detection of vaccine-like lumpy skin disease virus in cattle and Musca domestica L. flies in an outbreak of lumpy skin disease in Russia in 2017. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 65(5): 1137–1144. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12897

Sprygin, A., Pestova, Y., Wallace, D.B., Tuppurainen, E. and Kononov, A.V., 2019. Transmission of lumpy skin disease virus: a short review. Virus Res., 269: 197637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2019.05.015

Subhan, G., Ullah, S., Ali, S., Zainab, R., Sohail, M., Shakir, L., Ullah, I., 2024. Floristic composition and phenology of vegetation in Dir Lower, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Plant Prot., 8(3): 469–486. https://doi.org/10.33804/pp.008.03.5264

Tageldin, M.H., Wallace, D.B., Gerdes, G.H., Putterill, J.F., Greyling, R.R., Phosiwa, M.N., Al-Busaidy, R.M. and Al-Ismaaily, S.I., 2014. Lumpy skin disease of cattle: An emerging problem in the Sultanate of Oman. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 46: 241–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-013-0483-3

Thomas, A.D. and Mare, C.V.E., 1945. Knopvelsiekte. J. S. Afr. Vet. Med. Assoc., 16: 36-43.

Tulman, E.R., Afonso, C.L., Lu, Z., Zsak, L., Kutish, G.F. and Rock, D.L., 2001. Genome of lumpy skin disease virus. J. Virol., 75: 7122– 7130. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.75.15.7122-7130.2001

Tuppuraine, E.S., Alexandrov, T. and Beltran-Alcrudo, D., 2017. Lumpy skin disease field manual. A manual for veterinarians. FAO Anim. Prod. Health Manual, 20: 1-60.

Tuppuraine, E.S., Coetzer, J.A. and Venter, E.H., 2005. He detection of lumpy skin disease virus in samples of experimentally infected cattle using different diagnostic techniques. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res., 72: 153-164. https://doi.org/10.4102/ojvr.v72i2.213

Tuppurainen, E.S., Venter, E.H., Coetzer, J.A. and Bell-Sakyi, L., 2015. Lumpy skin disease: Attempted propagation in tick cell lines and presence of viral DNA in field ticks collected from naturally-infected cattle. Ticks TickBorne Dis., 6(2): 134-1340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2014.11.002

Tuppurainen, E.S.M. and Oura, C.A.L., 2012. Review: Lumpy skin disease: An emerging threat to Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Transb. Emerg. Dis., 59: 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1865-1682.2011.01242.x

Tuppurainen, E.S.M., Venter, E.H., Shisler, J.L., Gari, G., Mekonnen, G.A., Juleff, N. and Babiuk, L.A., 2017. Capripoxvirus diseases: Current status and opportunities for control. Transb. Emerg. Dis., 64(3): 729-745. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12444

Ullah, R., Rahim, F., Sajid, M., Ullah, S., Ali, S., Shakir, L. and Subhan, G., 2024. Ethnobotanical study of Munda Khazana, Dir Lower, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res., 30(3): 105–120.

Ullah, S., Ahmad, S.M., Ul-Haq, I., Ullah, I., Bilqees, R., Ali, A., Khan, Y., Sajid, M., 2023. Ethnobotanical study of Village Darangal Kambat, Tehsil Samarbagh, District Dir Lower, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Int. J. For. Res., 2023: 1–18.

Ullah, S., Jan, G., Gul, F., Israr, M., Khan, S., Khattak, M., Bibi, H., Sher, J., 2018e. Phytochemical analysis, antipyretic, analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antifungal activities of Pteris quadriaurita Retz. World J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci., 7(1): 857–876.

Ullah, S., Jan, G., Gul, F., Khan, S., Husna, Sher, J., Abidullah, S., 2018c. Phytochemistry and antibacterial activities of some selected plants of the war-affected area Bajaur Agency, Pakistan. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem., 7(3): 415–422.

Ullah, S., Jan, G., Gul, F., Khan, S., Khattak, M., Ihsan, M. and Bibi, H., 2018d. Phytochemical and nutritional analysis of selected plants of District Buner, Pakistan. Int. J. Fauna Biol. Stud., 5(3): 111–117.

Ullah, S., Jan, G., Gul, F., Khan, S. and Sheer, J., 2018f. Antifungal, nutritional, and phytochemical investigation of Asplenium dalhousiae of District Dir Lower, Pakistan. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem., 7(2): 3281–3288.

Ullah, S., Shakir, L., 2023. The effects of plant age on phytochemical and geographical distribution of Euphorbia helioscopia from Arrang District, Bajaur. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res., 29(4): 206–212.

Ullah, S., Shakir, L., Subhan, G., Sohail, M., 2023. Different soybean varieties are affected by irrigation in Mardan, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res., 29(4): 229–237.

Ullah, S., Shakir, L., Subhan, G., Sohail, M., Bilqees, R., Khan, F., Gulzar, U., Ali, S., Ullah, Z. and Ali, S., 2024. Phytodiversity and conservation assessment of ethnobotanically significant flora in Khall Hagram Dara, Lower Dir, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Plant Prot., 8(1): 143–162. https://doi.org/10.33804/pp.008.01.5084

Ullah, S., Sohail, M., Niaz, K., Khan, S., Khattak, M., 2018. Phytochemistry and antibacterial activity of Convolvulus arvensis Linn against Escherichia coli. J. Chem. Biol. Phys. Sci., 8(4): 2249–1929. https://doi.org/10.24214/jcbps.B.8.4.89204

Von Backstrom, U., 1945. Ngamiland cattle disease. Preliminary report on a new disease, the aetiological agent probably being of an infectious nature. J. S. Afr. Vet. Med. Assoc., 16: 29-35.

World Organisation for Animal Health OIE, 2020. OIE-Listed diseases, infections and infestations in force in 2020. Available from https://www.oie.int/animal-health-in-theworld/oie-listed-diseases-2020/. Accessed on 17 November 2020.

Zare, P., 2010. Concise review of veterinary microbiology (P.J. Quinn, B.K. Markey).

Zheng, M., Liu, Q., Jin, N.Y., Guo, J.G., Huang, X., Li, H.M., Zhu, W. and Xiong, Y., 2007. A duplex PCR assay for simultaneous detection and differentiation of Capripoxvirus and Orf virus. Mol. Cell Prob., 21: 276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcp.2007.01.005