Seroprevalence of Lumpy Skin Disease and Livestock Owners’ Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices in Selected Districts of Kazakhstan

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Lumpy skin disease is a transboundary viral disease of cattle associated with substantial economic losses and increasing geographic spread. Although Kazakhstan is currently considered free from active LSD outbreaks, the presence of transboundary risk necessitates continued surveillance. This study aimed to estimate the animal- and herd-level seroprevalence of lumpy skin disease virus in cattle, assess associations between seropositivity, herd size and geographic region, and evaluate livestock owners' knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding the disease in selected regions of Kazakhstan. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted between April and September 2025 in 12 districts across the West Kazakhstan, North Kazakhstan, Pavlodar and Aktobe regions. Serum samples from 338 cattle were tested for LSDV-specific antibodies using a commercial ELISA, and structured questionnaires were administered to 533 livestock owners. RESULTS: The overall animal-level seroprevalence was 23.4% (95% CI: 19.0-28.1), while 18.8% (95% CI: 13.6-24.9) of herds had at least one seropositive animal. Seropositivity varied significantly by region and herd size; however, because vaccination traceability data were unavailable and the serological assay could not differentiate antibodies induced by natural infection from those associated with previous vaccination, the findings should be interpreted cautiously. KAP assessment revealed high general awareness of LSD; however, limited recognition of vector-borne transmission and inconsistent implementation of preventive measures were evident. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight regional heterogeneity in exposure risk and underscore the importance of risk-based surveillance, strengthened biosecurity and targeted farmer education to support LSD prevention in Kazakhstan.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.