Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-thh2z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-11T04:31:08.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taeniasis, cysticercosis and echinococcosis/hydatidosis in Nigeria: III — prevalence of bovine and porcine cysticercosis, and hydatid cyst infection based on joint examination of slaughtered food animals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

B. J. O. Dada
B. J. O. Dada
Affiliation:
Dept. of Parasitology & Entomology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A survey was carried out in the abattoirs in Kano (Sudan zone), Kaduna and Zaria (Northern Guinea zone) and Jos (Bauchi plateau zone) to assess the actual prevalence of bovine and porcine cysticercosis, and of hydatid cyst infections in slaughtered food animals.

Hydatid cysts were detected in all species of animals slaughtered at the abattoir in the Sudan zone where the prevalence was: camels (55.5%), cattle (14.70%), sheep (11.4%), goats (26.4%). In the Northern Guinea zone, the prevalence was: camels (50%), cattle (0%), pigs (0%), sheep (0.21%) and goats (0.79%). In the Bauchi plateau zone, sheep were found to harbour hydatid cysts, with a prevalence of 1.4%. In the various animal species, hydatid cysts were detected in the lungs, liver and spleen. Fertility rates of the hydatid cysts from various hosts were as follows: camels 94.5%, cattle 7.4%, goats 81.3%, and sheep 59.7%.

Cysticercus bovis was detected in slaughtered cattle from the three zones surveyed. Northern Guinea zone had the highest prevalence (4%), followed by Bauchi plateau zone (2.1%) and Sudan (1.9%). C. bovis was detected in the tongue, masseter muscle, heart, diaphragm and the quarters of infected cattle.

C. cellulosae was detected in 18.4% and 1.76% of slaughtered pigs examined in Northern Guinea and Bauchi plateau zones respectively. The cysts were found in the tongue, masseter muscle, heart, diaphragm, thigh and fore-limbs. No pigs were available for examination in the Sudan zone.

The data obtained in this survey are believed to be a better indication of the rate of infection in the various animal species than data obtained from previous abattoir records.

Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , December 1980 , pp. 293 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anon. (1961) Annual Veterinary Reports: Kano Province, Nigeria. 10 pages.Google Scholar
Anon. (1967) Code of Practice for Meat Inspection. Ministry of Health, Northern Nigeria. Printed by the Government Printer, Kaduna, Nigeria. Med. (N) 75: 24 pages.Google Scholar
Anon. (1975) Annual Veterinary Reports: Federal Livestock Department, Division of Veterinary Public and Animal Health, Kaduna, Nigeria. 20 pages.Google Scholar
Beal, V. C. Jr (1974) The cost benefit aspects of various types of animal disease monitoring activities. In: Animal Disease Monitoring. Ingram, D. C., Mitchell, R. W. and Martin, S. W. (editors). Charles C. Thomas. London. 72 pages.Google Scholar
Belino, E. D. (1975) Some observations of Taenia saginata cysticercosis in slaughtered cattle in Nigeria. International Journal of Zoonosis, 2, 92–99.Google ScholarPubMed
Dada, B. J. O. (1977) Prevalence of taeniid encountered at meat inspection in Nigeria. Veterinary Record, 101, 347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dada, B. J. O. (1978) Prevalence of hydatid disease in food animals reported at meat inspection in Nigeria. Journal of Helminthology, 52, 70–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, M. (1961) A case of hydatid disease in Northern Nigeria. West African Medical Journal, 10, 63.Google ScholarPubMed
Soulsby, E. J. L. (1975) Helminths, Arthropods and Protozoa of Domesticated Animals. 6th Edition. Williams & Wilkins Co., Baltimore, MD. U.S.A.129.Google Scholar