This document summarizes information about bovine brucellosis, including its causative agent, transmission, clinical signs, epidemiology, diagnosis, and control programs in India. It discusses that B. abortus is the primary cause of bovine brucellosis. Seroprevalence studies in India show varied rates of infection across states, with some states reporting over 40% seropositivity. National control programs aim to reduce the disease impact through biannual screening, vaccination of female calves, and bull castration. However, effective control remains challenging due to issues like lack of disposal plans, limited vaccination coverage, and involvement of multiple animal hosts. Improved vaccines, diagnostics, and eradication strategies are still

1. BOVINE BRUCELLOSIS: EPIDEMIOLOGY &
CONTROLPROGRAMMESIN INDIA
PRUTHVISHREE B. S., M.V.Sc. Scholar
BHOJ R SINGH, Head
Division of Epidemiology
IVRI, Izatnagar

2.  Organism
 Transmission
 Disease manifestations
 Epidemiology
 Vaccination
 Constraints in control of brucellosis
 National brucellosis control programme.

3.  In India, brucellosis was 1st recognized in 1942.
 Bovine brucellosis is caused by Brucella abortus.
 Eradicated from most of the European countries, Japan,
Australia, Canada & New Zealand.
 Economic losses to the tune of Rs.350 million/year in India.
 Causal organism: Category B bioterrorism agent.
( PD ADMAS, 2012)

4.  Risk factors - breed, herd size, management practices,
breeding methods & source of replacement stock.
 Strains of Pathogen: Cattle & buffaloes harbor
predominantly B. abortus biotype-1; followed by biotype-3;
rarely biotypes-2, 4, 5,6 and 9.
 Principal manifestation of animal brucellosis are
reproductive failure, abortion in primaparous cows in third
trimester. epididymitis and orchitis in males.

5.  450 BC: Described by Hippocrates
 1914: B. suis. Indiana, United States
 1953: B. ovis. New Zealand, Australia
 1966: B. canis. Dogs, caribou, and reindeer

6. Sir William Burnett(1779-1861)
Sir David Bruce (1855-1931)
Micrococcus melitensis
Bernhard Bang
Bacterium abortus

7.  Brucella abortus
 Gram negative , coccobacillus
 9 biovars
 The genome organization
characterized by the presence of
2 chromosomes
 Can persist in the environment

8. Species Biovar/serovar Natural host Human pathogen
Brucella abortus 1-6,9 cattle, bison, buffalo yes
B. melitensis 1-3 Sheep, goat yes
B. suis 1,2,3
2
4
5
Swine
European hares
Reindeer, caribou
rodents
Yes
Yes
Yes
yes
B.canis none Dogs,other canids yes
B.ovis none sheep no
B. neotomae none rodents no
B. pinnipediae
B. Ceti
B.microti
B.inopinata
Seal
Cetaceans
Common vole
Breast implant
Yes
Centre for food security and public health(CFSPH), Lawa state university, 2012

10.  Cows
 Abortion, stillbirth
 Weak calves
 Retained placenta
 Decreased lactation
 Bulls
 Epididymitis, orchitis
 Infertility, arthritis

11. LABORATORY DIAGNOSISof Brucella
spp.
IDENTIFICATION SEROLOGY OTHERTESTS
BiochemicalTests
 DyeTolerance
SlideAgglutination
Gel Formation
Requirement of CO2
Tbilisi Phage Lysis
H2S test
Nucleic acid recognition
methods- PCR,RFLP
Identification of vaccine
strains
Brucellin skin test
SAT
Native hap ten based gel
precipitation test
Milk test
MRT, Milk- ELISA
Interferon gamma assay
Stamp's staining
Culture-
Ferrell's medium
Buffered plate
agglutination tests
CFT
ELISA
A-B ELISA
FPA
Rose Bengal plate
agglutination test (RBPT)

12. Poor farm hygiene
Unrestricted trade movement
local cattle yards & fairs
Seasonal maintenance
AI with infected semen

13.  Serological survey of brucellosis was performed in 23 states
of India. A total of 30,437 bovine samples were screened with
RBPT and STAT which reveals 1.9% prevalence in cattle and
1.8% in buffaloes. (Isloor et al., 1998).
 PD-ADMAS conducted long-term serological studies which
indicated 5% of cattle and 3% of buffaloes are infected with
brucellosis. (Rajasekhar et al., 2002).
 Sero-prevalence of brucellosis in Mithun (Bos frontalis) in
Nagaland state by ELISA, STAT and RBPT is 34%, 20%
and 11% respectively. (Rajkhowa et al., 2004)

14.  Prevalence rate for brucellosis was 8.58% in cattle, 8.85% in
goat and 7.08% in sheep from the states of Rajasthan and
Bihar. (Singh, 2007)
 The overall herd & animal prevalence in peri-urban areas of
Gujarath was 33.70% & 11.90% respectively. (Patel,2014)
 Prevalence was 40.4% in bovines by AB-ELISA in
Maharashtra State. (Lodhe et al., 2011)

15.  The Avidin biotin ELISA in sera samples from 52 villages of
Punjab state revealed prevalence in Buffaloes was 13.4% and in
Cattle was 9.9%. (Dhand et al., 2005)
 Milk-ELISA in 345 cattle and buffalo from 32 villages, 18.26%
of animals were found positive in Punjab. (Aulakh et al., 2008).
 Examination of 4580 animals of 119 dairy farms by RBPT &
ELISA revealed , overall herd prevalence was 65.54% &
individual animal prevalence was 26.50%.
 Individual animal prevalence in Punjab(34.15%) was higher than
Haryana(22.34%). (Chand,2013)
 Sero-prevalence of brucellosis in Yak in Arunachal Pradesh by
A-B ELISA, RBPT & STAT is 23.29%, 21.11% and 18.98%
respectively. (Bandyopadhyay et al., 2008).

16.  Seroprevelence range from 6.6% in Madhya Pradesh to 60%
in Assam.
 6.5% prevalence in cattle from organized farms compared to
5.1% in unorganized farms. (Mehra, 2000)
 Seroprevelence study of bovine brucellosis using indirect-
ELISA shows 45.80%, 22.39%, 8.57% seropositivity in
Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh & UttaraKhand respectively.
(Jagapur, 2013)

17.  B. abortus biotype-1 appears to be the predominants
biotype(21 out of 39) in most parts of the country, followed by
B. abortus biotype-3 (8 of 39) in northern states of uttar
pradesh and Haryana and the eastern states of Orissa.
 B. abortus biotype 9 in orrisa and B. abortus biotypes 4,6 and
9 and B. melitensis biotype-2 in the Southern state of
Tamilnadu.
 B. melitensis biotype-1 was encountered in cattle and buffalo
from haryana and in the Southern state of Andhra pradesh and
Karnataka. (Sen and Sharma, 1975; Hemashettar et al., 1987)

18. 402 247 199 122 243 91 232 43 109 49 9 27 2
10567
3750 3405
2843 2622 2615
1942
1336 1361 1121 920 764 700
3.8 6.6 5.8 4.3 9.3 3.5 12 3.2 8 4.4 1 3.5 0.3
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Positive Sampletested Percentage
(Renukaradhya et al.,)

19. 38 5 2 115 0 0 8 4 0 4 0 1
1952676 665 636 592 402 395 348 325 142 121 66 5
38319
5.6 0.8 0.3 19.4 0 0 2.3 1.2 0 3.3 0 20 5
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
Positive Sampletested Percentage
( Renukaradhya et al.,)

20. 41 14 111 47 1 16 3 3 13 25 7
281
1678
222
2233 1961
190
569 542
173
911 675
30
9456
2.4 6.3 5 2.4 0.5 2.8 0.6 1.7 1.4 3.7 23.3 3
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Positive Sampletested Percentage
(Renukaradhya et al., 2002)

21. 6066
2246 2091 2032 1869
920 865 794 764 700
183 40 14 18 47 9 19 20 27 2
3 1.8 0.7 6.9 2.5 1 2.2 2.5 3.5 0.30
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Sampletested Positive Percentage
( Isloor et al., 1998)

22. 676 665 636 541 455 342 220 70
23284
38 5 2 2 4 7 1 2 440
5.6 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.9 2 0.5 2.9 1.9
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Sampletested Positive Percentage
Isloor et al.,1998
Seroprevalence of Cattle brucellosis
in different States of India

23. 1353
1832 1561
221
743 433 173 488
7153
39 34 15 14 13 3 3 7 128
2.9 1.9 1 6.3 1.7 0.7 1.7 1.4 1.8
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Sampletested Positive Percentage
( Isloor et al., 1998)

24. 27
14
4
1
21
25
44
2
6
36
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
4
0
7.14
25
0
4.76
0 0
50
16.67
11.11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Sampletested Positive Percentage
( Upadhyay et al., 2007)
.

25. 6 6
18
89
17
34 23
373
1 2 3
47
0 0 1
63
16.67 33.33
16.67
52.81
0 0 4.35
16.89
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Sampletested Positive Percentage
( Upadhyay et al., 2007)

26. 73
48 38 20
83
40
512
2 2 2 2 7 2 17
2.74 4.17 5.26 10 8.43 5 3.32
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Sampletested Positive Percentage
( Upadhyay et al,, 2007)

27. 19692
14968
16806
13906
18611615
564 122 431 1638.2 3.7 1.1 3.09 8.76
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2008-09
Randomsample tested positive percentage
(Annual report-NRDDL)

28. 0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Gujarat Maharashtra Rajasthan Madhya
Pradesh
UttarPradesh
260
941
39
2795
712
82
328
5
575
294
31.54
34.86 12.82 20.57 41.29
Sampletested Positive Percentage
(Gajendragad , 2007)

29. 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Manipur Assam Mizoram
700
395
676
2 0
38
0.28 0 5.62
Sampletested Positive Percentage
(Gajendragad , 2007)

30. 0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Andhrapradesh Kerala Karnataka
2843
1361
10767
122 109
402
4.3 8 3.8
Sampletested Positive Percentage
(Gajendragad , 2007)

31. 2013
3425
1595
679
348 287
56 5017.28 2 3 5
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2010-11
sampletested positive percentage
(CADRAD,2012)

32.  Brucella abortus S-19 (calf
hood vaccine)
 Not recommended in
pregnancy
 Persistent vaccinal antibody
titre
 Infective in humans
 Brucella abortus RB51
 differentiate “wild type”
exposure from
immunization
 Infectious to humans
 Not Validated in
buffaloes

33. 1
• Disease confirmation – distress sale
2
• Increased trade movement & commercial dairy farming.
3
• No policy for slaughter of infected animals/compensations
4
• Lack of public awareness
5
• Calf hood vaccination is not practiced

34. Biannual
village level
screening of
pooled milk
samples. For
differentiation
in clean and
non clean
herds
Biannual
B.abortus S-19
vaccination for
female calves
of 4-8 M age
NATIONAL CONTROL
PROGRAMME ON BRUCELLOSIS
Mass
screening &
castration of
infected bulls

35. Reduce the impact of disease on human health and to
reduce economic losses.
NCPB is a time bound 5-year intensive location targeted control
program.
Intends to involve village milk cooperatives in diagnosis and
control through vaccination.
Periodical surveillance using milk ring test for pooled milk and
ELISA for random or herd screening.
Targets B. abortus S19 vaccination for all the female calves of 4 to
8 months in infected villages.
Program assures very high & sustained cost benefit ratio to
farmer & dairy industry & helps to establish accredited herds/
villages.
Expected benefits of NCPB

36. Why the NCPB in India have high
probability for failure?
1. No solid plan for disposal of Brucella positive animals.
2. No administrative control of animal rearing, management and
movement can be implemented.
3. Farmers hardly know about NCPB and its benefits.
4. Failure of vaccine and vaccination programme (even on well
organized dairy herds in National Institutes brucellosis is rampant
despite of regular vaccination).
5. Brucella has a wide host range, just screening and vaccination of
dairy animals can not be sufficient. Sheep, goat, pigs and other
animals are often reared by the farmers in the same village in the
same locality.
6. Dearth of assured quality semen.
7. Poverty, lack of education and inability to opt for hygiene are at
the top of every plan to fall.
And---and---and---many----many---many---more reasons.

37. • Development of goodVaccines & Diagnostics.
• Formulation & execution of viable eradication programmes
• Development of Vaccines for all species of animals.
• Development of honest Reporting system for brucellosis in animals to health
authorities
• Good animal husbandry practices
• Mass vaccination of livestock.