Study of risk factors associated with the prevalence of bovine babesiosis in Mali: case of the Kita region

 Corresponding author: Brahima Sacko. Copyright © 2025 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Liscense 4.0. Study of risk factors associated with the prevalence of bovine babesiosis in Mali: case of the Kita region Modibo Diakité 1, Brahima Sacko 2, *, Chaka Traoré 1, Amadou Sery 1, Mamadou Koné 1, Mahamadou Konte 1 and Sekouba Bengaly 1 1 Diagnostic and Research Service of Central Veterinary Laboratory of Bamako (Mali). 2 Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Technology at University of Science, Technology and Technology, Bamako. World Journal of Biology Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 2025, 21(03), 206-211 Publication history: Received on 25 January 2025; revised on 03 March 2025; accepted on 05 March 2025 Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/wjbphs.2025.21.3.0242 Abstract This study conducted in 2022 in 6 communes in the Kita region aimed to determine the risk factors associated with the prevalence of Babesia bovis and Babesia bigemina. It involved the analysis of 450 bovine blood samples from the communes of Bougaribaya, Djidjan, Founia-Benkady, Kassaro, Sébécoro and Souransan-Tomoto. The blood samples were examined in the laboratory using the GIEMSA staining technique. This work made it possible to obtain a prevalence of 10.00% of bovine babesiosis. The analysis did not reveal any statistically significant difference (p>0.05) between the communes of Bougaribaya (10.67%), Djidjan (6.67%) Founia Benkady (5.33%), Kassaro (17.33%), Sébécoro (10.67%) and Souransan Tomoto (9.33%). There was no significant difference between male (10.90%) and female (9.21%) cattle by the chi2 test, (p>0.05) 9.21% in female cattle, against 10.90% in males. Statistical analysis of the results revealed a statistically significant difference (p< 0.05) between adult (14.95%) and young (5.51%) cattle.Statistical analysis showed that the risk factor associated with the prevalence of Bebesiosis in this study is age Keywords: Prevalence; Bovine Babesiosis; Risk Factors; Mali 1. Introduction The Kita circle is located in the southwestern part of the Republic of Mali between the 14th and 18th degrees of northern altitude and the 10th degree of western longitude. It covers an area of 35,250 km2[1]. The economy of the Kita circle is mainly based on agriculture and livestock farming. However, livestock farming faces several difficulties linked, among other things, to the illicit sale of veterinary drugs, the illegal practice of the veterinary profession and the irregular monitoring of certain animal pathologies including babesiosis [1]. Recent studies conducted on bovine babesiosis in certain eco-climatic zones of Mali as well as in the Bamako Distinct have revealed that bovine babesiosis is increasingly becoming a threat to the livestock sector in Mali [10] Even today, very few studies have been conducted on animal hemoparasitic diseases in general and animal babesiosis in particular in the Kita circle. These realities have led us to conduct investigations with a view to improving our knowledge of the situation of bovine babesiosis in the Kita circle. 2. Materials and methods The survey was conducted between September and December 2022 in six municipalities in the Kita circle. Blood samples were taken from 450 cattle in the municipalities of Bougaribaya, Djidjan, Founia-Benkady, Kassaro, Sébécoro and Souransan-Tomoto. Blood was taken from the jugular vein of the cattle using a sampling needle in vacuum-sealed “Vaccutainer” tubes containing the anticoagulant “EDTA”. The site code, animal identification number and collection date were noted on each tube. The tubes containing the blood collected were placed in a rack and then stored in a cooler World Journal of Biology Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 2025, 21(03), 206-211 207 containing pieces of ice sent to the Central Veterinary Laboratory in Bamako. In, the smears were prepared on glass slides with a margin at one end. The smears were fixed in methanol solution for 5 minutes, then stained in GIEMSA Rapid solution for 5 minutes. They were then washed under running tap water and dried. After receiving 2 or 3 drops of immersion oil, the dried smears were placed under the ‘’X100’’ objective of the binocular electric microscope for the search for Babesia bovis and Babesia bigemina in red blood cells. The raw data were entered with Microsoft EXCEL 2010 software and analyzed with Stata software version 12.1. The ‘’chi 2’’ test was used to compare the different variables. 3. Results 3.1. Overall prevalence rate by municipality Table 1 prevalence of Babesiosis Municipality Villages Negative Positive Total Prevalence (%) Bougaribaya Bagnagafata 23 2 25 8,00 Behon 22 3 25 12,00 Bougaribaya 22 3 25 12,00 S/total 1 67 8 75 10,67 Djidjan Batimakana 24 1 25 4,00 Djidjan 23 2 25 8,00 Sandiabougou 23 2 25 8,00 S/total 2 70 5 75 6,67 Founia Benkady Doumba 24 1 25 4,00 Founia-Moribougou 24 1 25 4,00 Kodogoni 23 2 25 8,00 S/total 3 71 4 75 5,33 Kassaro Ballandougou Morola 22 3 25 12,00 Kassaro 19 6 25 24,00 Manabougoucoura 21 4 25 16,00 S/total 4 62 13 75 17,33 Sébécoro Badinko, 25 0 25 0,00 Sébécoro 21 4 25 16,00 Sounty 21 4 25 16,00 S/total 5 67 8 75 10,67 Souransan Tomoto Kassan 22 3 25 12,00 Mambri 24 1 25 4,00 Souransan Tomoto 22 3 25 12,00 S/total 6 68 7 75 9,33 Total 405 45 450 10,00 Between municipality; X-squared = 7.3333, p-value = 0.197 World Journal of Biology Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 2025, 21(03), 206-211 208 45 cattle were positive for bovine babesiosis out of a total of 450 cattle examined, representing a prevalence of 10.00%. The analysis did not reveal any statistically significant difference (p>0.05) between the communes of Bougaribaya (10.67%), Djidjan (6.67%), Founia Benkady (5.33%), Kassaro (17.33%), Sébécoro (10.67%) and Souransan Tomoto (9.33%), (Table 1). 3.2. Overall prevalence rate of babesiosis by municipality and Babesia species Table 2 Prevalence of Babesiosis by municipality and species of Babesia Municipality Villages Positive Babesia bigemina Babesia bovis Number (%) Number (%) Bougaribaya Bagnagafata 2 2 100.00 0 0.00 Behon 3 1 33.33 2 66.67 Bougaribaya 3 3 100.00 0 0.00 S/total 1 8 6 75.00 2 25.00 Djidjan Batimakana 1 1 100.00 0 0.00 Djidjan 2 2 100.00 0 0.00 Sandiabougou 2 1 50.00 1 50.00 S/total 1 5 4 80.00 1 20.00 Founia Benkady Doumba 1 1 100.00 0 0.00 Founia-Moribougou 1 0 0.00 1 100.00 Kodogoni 2 2 100.00 0 0.00 S/total 1 4 3 75.00 1 25.00 Kassaro Ballandougou Morola 3 2 66.67 1 33.33 Kassaro 6 4 66.67 2 33.33 Manabougoucoura 4 3 75.00 1 25.00 S/total 1 13 9 69.23 4 30.77 Sébécoro Badinko, 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 Sébécoro 4 2 50.00 2 50.00 Sounty 4 3 75.00 1 25.00 S/total 1 8 5 62.50 3 37.50 Souransan Tomoto Kassan 3 3 100.00 0 0.00 Mambri 1 1 100.00 0 0.00 Souransan Tomoto 3 2 66.67 1 33.33 S/total 1 7 6 85.71 1 14.29 Total 45 33 73.33 12 26.67 Global (here it is the chi2 between the global prevalence of B. bigemina (73.33%) and B. Bovis (26.67%); X-squared = 17.778, p-value = 2.483e-05; Babesia bovis (here it is the chi2 between the communal prevalences of B. bovis); X-squared = 1.2714, p-value = 0.9378; Babesia bigemina (here it is the chi2 between the communal prevalences of B. bigemina); X-squared = 1.2714, p-value = 0.9378 33 cattle were positive for bovine babesiosis due to Babesia bigemina out of a total of 45 cattle positive for bovine babesiosis, representing an overall prevalence rate of 73.33%. In addition, 12 cattle were positive for Babesia bovis out of a total of 45 cattle positive for bovine babesiosis, representing an overall prevalence rate of 26.67%. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference (p<0.05) between the overall prevalence rates of Babesia bigemina and Babesia bovis. (Table 2). There was no significant difference (p>0.05) between the prevalence rates of Babesia bovis in World Journal of Biology Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 2025, 21(03), 206-211 209 the communes of Bougaribaya (25.00%), Djidjan (20.00%), Founia Benkady (25.00%), Kassaro (30.77%), Sébécoro (37.50) and Souransan-Tomoto (14.29), (Table 2). Statistical analysis of the results also revealed no significant difference (p>0.05) between the prevalence rates of Babesia bigemina in the communes of Bougaribaya (75.00%), Djidjan (80.00%), Founia Benkady (75.00%), Kassaro (69.23%), Sébécoro (62.50%) and Souransan-Tomoto (85.71%), (Table 2) 3.3. Overall prevalence rate of bovine babesiosis by sex The prevalence rate of bovine babesiosis was 9.21% in female cattle, compared to 10.90% in males. There was no significant difference between male and female cattle by the chi2 test, (p>0.05) (Table 3). Table 3 Prevalence of babésiose bovine by sex Bovine sex Total Negative Positive Prevalence (%) Female 239 217 22 9.21 Male 211 188 23 10.90 Total 450 405 45 10.00 X-squared = 0.19433, p-value = 0.6593 Statistical analysis of the results revealed a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the prevalence rates of Babesia bigemina (72.73%) and Babesia bovis (27.27%) in female cattle, (Table 4). A significant difference (p < 0.05) between the prevalence rates of Babesia bigemina (73.91%) and Babesia bovis (26.09%) in male cattle, (Table 4). Statistical analysis of the results revealed a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the prevalence rates of Babesia bigemina (73.33%) and Babesia bovis (26.67%) in male and female cattle, (Table 4). Table 4 Prevalence of babésiose bovine by sex and Babesia species Sex Positive Babesia bigemina Babesia bovis Number Prevalence (%) Number Prevalence (%) Female 22 16 72,73 6 27.27 Male 23 17 73,91 6 26.09 Total 45 33 73,33 12 26.67 Between females X-squared = 7.3636, p-value = 0.006656; Between males X-squared = 8.6957, p-value = 0.00319; Between males and females Xsquared = 19.613, p-value = 0.0002042 The prevalence rate of bovine babesiosis was 14.95% in adult cattle, compared to 5.51% in young cattle. There was a significant difference between adult and young cattle by the chi2 test, (p < 0.05) (Table 5) Table 5 Prevalence rate of bovine babesiosis by age Age Total Negative Positive Prevalence (%) Adult 214 182 32 14.95 Joung 236 223 13 5.51 Total 450 405 45 10.00 X-squared = 10.099, p-value = 0.001483 Statistical analysis of the results revealed a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the prevalence rates of Babesia Bigemina (68.75%) and Babesia bovis (31.25%) in adult cattle. World Journal of Biology Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 2025, 21(03), 206-211 210 A significant difference (p < 0.05) between the prevalence rates of Babesia Bigemina (84.62%) and Babesia bovis (15.38%) in young cattle. Statistical analysis of the results revealed a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the prevalence rates of Babesia Bigemina (73.33%) and Babesia bovis (26.67%) in adult and young cattle Table 6 Prevalence of Babésiose bovine by Age et Babesia species Age Positive Babesia bigemina Babesia bovis Number Prevalence (%) Number Prevalence (%) Adult 32 22 68.75 10 31.25 Joung 13 11 84.62 2 15.38 Total 45 33 73.33 12 26.67 Between adults X-squared = 7.5625, p-value = 0.00596; Between juveniles X-squared = 9.8462, p-value = 0.001702; Between adults and juveniles Xsquared = 21.462, p-value = 8.442e-05 4. Discussion The overall prevalence rate of bovine babesiosis in the study area was 10.00%. This relatively low prevalence rate may be due to the fact that the cattle examined were dewormed with acaricides or they underwent chemotherapy with diminazen diaceturate (diminazene diaceturate). This result can be explained by the sensitivity of the test used, because the parasitological diagnostic test is much less sensitive than the serological (ELISA) and molecular biology (PCR) tests. Our results are similar to the overall prevalence rate of bovine babesiosis (11.7%) obtained by Abdela. Our results are different from the overall prevalence rates of bovine babesiosis obtained by Kamani and al [2] (16.0%), Sawitri and al[3], ((7.1%), Fethu et al [9] (23%), Haben et al[8], (21.7%) and by Modibo et al[10] (15.86%). The overall prevalence rate of Babesia bigemina (73.33%) is higher than the overall prevalence rate of Babesia bovis (26.67%) in the six municipality. This predominance of Babesia bigemina compared to Babesia bovis can be explained by the absence of the main vector of Babesia bovis (Boophilus microplus) in the Kita region. Our results are comparable to those obtained by Haben et al, who recorded higher prevalence rates in Babesia bigemina (15.53%) than in Babesia bovis (6.17%). Our results are different from those obtained by Nawolo and al. [4] with a prevalence rate of Babesia bovis (45.83%) higher than the prevalence rate of Babesia bigemina (13.61%). The study revealed that the prevalence rate of bovine babesiosis in male cattle (10.90%) is slightly higher than the prevalence rate of bovine babesiosis in female cattle (9.21%). There was no significant difference between male and female cattle by the chi2 test, (p>0.05), which shows that male cattle are as susceptible to this infection as females and that sex was not a risk factor associated with bovine babesiosis in this study. This result is similar to the work of Alemayehu and al[5] who did not find a statistically significant difference between male (16.6%) and female (10.5%) cattle. The same trend observed in the work of Wada and al [6], who also did not find a statistically significant difference between male (4.35%) and female (7.63%) cattle. The prevalence rate of bovine babesiosis was higher in adult cattle (14.95%) than in young cattle (5.51%) and a statistically significant difference observed between these two age categories. This shows that age was a risk factor for bovine babesiosis in this study. Our result is different from the result of Hamsho and al [7], who did not find a statistically significant difference between adult (15%) and young (13.2%) cattle. 5. Conclusion This study revealed that bovine babesiosis is on the rise in the Kita region and is increasingly becoming a constraint on cattle breeding in this locality. It also showed that the risk factor associated with the prevalence of this disease is age. References [1] Economic, Social and Cultural Development Program (PDESC) of the Kita Circle Council 2010 – 2014 [2] J.Kamani*., A.Sannusi., O.K.Egwu., G.I.Dogo., T.J.Tanko., S.Kemza., A.E.Tafarki and D.S. Gbise. Prevalence and Significance of Haemoparasitic Infections of Cattle in NorthCentral, Nigeria. Veterinary World, 2010, Vol.3(10):445-448. World Journal of Biology Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 2025, 21(03), 206-211 211 [3] D H Sawitri, A H Wardhana, F Ekawasti, and D A Dewi, (2022). Parasitological and Molecular Detection of Babesiosis in Cattle and Buffalo in West and Central Java. Advances in Biological Sciences Research, volume 18. 9th International Seminar on Tropical Animal Production (ISTAP 2021) [4] Nawolo Yéo, Yahaya Karamoko, Dofara Soro, Zahouli Faustin, Abou Joel Landry Okon, Biégo Guillaume Gragnon, Prevalence of Trypanosoma, Babesia and Anaplasma in cattle reared in the North of Côte d’Ivoire. International Journal of Biosciences | IJB | ISSN: 2220-6655 (Print), 2222-5234 (Online) http://www.innspub.net Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 21-28, 2017 [5] Alemayehu Choramo and Nuraddis Ibrahim. Prevalence of Babesiosis in Cattle in and Around JimmaTown, OromiaRegion, South Western Ethiopia. Acta Parasitologica Globalis 8 (2): 96-100, 2017 ISSN 2079-2018© IDOSI Publications, 2017DOI: 10.5829/idosi.apg.2017.96.100 [6] Wada, Y1*., Tijjani, M1., Abdulmalik, Y2.and Wada, M3. Babesiosis in Cattle slaughtered at Zango Abattoir Zaria, Kaduna State, Nigeria: A Short Communication. UJMR, Volume 5 Number 2, December, 2020, pp 87 - 91 ISSN: 2616 – 0668. https://doi.org/10.47430/ujmr.2052.011. [7] Hamsho A, Tesfamarym G, Megersa G, Megersa M (2015) A CrossSectional Study of Bovine Babesiosis in Teltele District, Borena Zone, Southern Ethiopia. J Veterinar Sci Technol 6: 230. doi:10.4172/2157-7579.1000230 [8] Abdela N, Ibrahim N, Begna F. Prevalence, risk factors and vectors identification of bovine anaplasmosis and babesiosis in and around Jimma town, Southwestern Ethiopia. Acta Trop. 2018 Jan; 177:9-18. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2017.09.010. Epub 2017 Sep 19. PMID: 28939494. [9] Fethu Lemma, Adugna Girma and Dirsha Demam (2016). Prevalence of Bovine Babesiosis in and Around Jimma Town South Western Ethiopia. Advances in Biological Research 10 (1): 37-42, 2016 ISSN 1992-0067 [10] Modibo Diakite, Brahima SACKO, Fousseyni Sidibe, Sékouba Bengaly and Satigui Sidibe, (2024). Study of the prevalence of bovine babesiosis with Babesia bovis and Babesia bigemina isolated in the livestock of Bamako and its peri-urban area between 2018 and 2023. SSN: 2456-2912 VET 2024; 9(1): 805-807 © 2024 VET www.veterinarypaper.com [11] A. MEBANGA SASSA, R. DIEZOUMBE WASSAH et J. NDUKUM AԜAH, 2019. Prevalence and risk factors of hemoparasitosis in small ruminants slaughtered in the city of Ngaoundéré in Cameroon. International Journal of Biological and Chemical sciences. Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci. 13(1): 157-165, February 2019. http://ajol.info/index.php/ijbcs [12] Moïse Kasereka KALUME ,2017. Contribution to the study of the epidemiology of bovine babesiosis a babesia divergens in Belgium. Catholic University of GrabenInterdisciplinary Research Center of Graben, Animal and Human Health, Environment and Fish Farming. https://doi.org/10.57988/crig-2431 [13] TAKELE Tesgera, FIKRU Regassa, BULTO Giro AND Abdinur Mohammed, 2017. Study on prevalence and identification of ixodid ticks in cattle in Gursum district, East Hararghe Zone of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. J. Parasitol. Vector Biol. Vol. 9(4), pp. 27-33. [14] WALKER A.R., BOUATTOUR A, CAMICAS J-L, ESTRADA-Penaa., HORAK I.G, LATIF A.A, PEGRAM R.G & PRESTON P.M, 2003. Ticks of Domestic Animals in Africa: A Guide to Identification of species. [15] YEO Nawolo, YAHAYA Karamoko, SORO Dofara, ZAHOULI Faustin BI, ZOUH JoeL Abou Okon Landry, BIEGO Guillaume Gragnon, 2017. Prevalence of Trypanosoma, Babesia and Anaplasma in cattle reared in the North of Côte d’Ivoire. International Journal of Biosciences | IJB |. ISSN: 2220-6655 (Print), 2222-5234 (Online) http://www.innspub.net Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 21-28.