The spatial ecology of free-ranging domestic pigs (Sus scrofa) in western Kenya

BMC Veterinary Research

Eric M Fèvre¹  Elizabeth A Cook¹  William A de Glanville¹  Lian F Thomas¹ 

[1] International Livestock Research Institute, Old Naivasha Road, PO Box 30709, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya

关键词: Free range;    Trypanosoma;    Toxoplasma;    African swine fever;    Trichinella;    Taenia;    GPS;    Pig;   

Others  :  1119592
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-6148-9-46

 received in 2012-09-25, accepted in 2013-03-01,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

In many parts of the developing world, pigs are kept under low-input systems where they roam freely to scavenge food. These systems allow poor farmers the opportunity to enter into livestock keeping without large capital investments. This, combined with a growing demand for pork, especially in urban areas, has led to an increase in the number of small-holder farmers keeping free range pigs as a commercial enterprise. Despite the benefits which pig production can bring to a household, keeping pigs under a free range system increases the risk of the pig acquiring diseases, either production-limiting or zoonotic in nature. This study used Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to track free range domestic pigs in rural western Kenya, in order to understand their movement patterns and interactions with elements of the peri-domestic environment.

Results

We found that these pigs travel an average of 4,340 m in a 12 hr period and had a mean home range of 10,343 m² (range 2,937–32,759 m²) within which the core utilisation distribution was found to be 964 m² (range 246–3,289 m²) with pigs spending on average 47% of their time outside their homestead of origin.

Conclusion

These are the first data available on the home range of domestic pigs kept under a free range system: the data show that pigs in these systems spend much of their time scavenging outside their homesteads, suggesting that these pigs may be exposed to infectious agents over a wide area. Control policies for diseases such as Taenia solium, Trypanosomiasis, Trichinellosis, Toxoplasmosis or African Swine Fever therefore require a community-wide focus and pig farmers require education on the inherent risks of keeping pigs under a free range system. The work presented here will enable future research to incorporate movement data into studies of disease transmission, for example for the understanding of transmission of African Swine Fever between individuals, or in relation to the life-cycle of parasites including Taenia solium.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Thomas et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Delgado CL, Rosegrant M, Courbois C, Steinfeld H, Ehui S: Livestock to 2020: the next food revolution. Int Food Policy Res Inst IFPRI 1999. Food, Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 28
• [2]Delgado CL, Rosegrant MW, Meijer S: The revolution continues. Auckland, New Zealand: Annual meeting of the International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium (IATRC); 2001.
• [3]Dewey CE, Wohlgemut JM, Levy M, Mutua FK: The impact of political crisis on smallholder pig farmers in western Kenya, 2006–2008. J Mod Afr Stud 2011, 49(03):455-473.
• [4]Lekule FP, Kyvsgaard NC: Improving pig husbandry in tropical resource-poor communities and its potential to reduce risk of porcine cysticercosis. Acta Trop 2003, 87(1):111-117.
• [5]Githigia SM, Murekefu A, Otieno RO: Prevalence of porcine cysticercosis and risk factors for taenia solium taeniosis in funyula division of busia district, kenya. Kenya Veterinarian 2007, 29(1):37-39.
• [6]Waiswa C, Fèvre EM, Nsadha Z, Sikasunge CS, Willingham Iii AL: Porcine cysticercosis in southeast Uganda: seroprevalence in Kamuli and Kaliro districts. J Parasitol Res 2009, 2009:1-5.
• [7]Ngowi HA, Kassuku AA, Maeda GEM, Boa ME, Carabin H, Willingham AL: Risk factors for the prevalence of porcine cysticercosis in Mbulu District, Tanzania. Vet Parasitol 2004, 120(4):275-283.
• [8]Assana E, Amadou F, Thys E, Lightowlers MW, Zoli AP, Dorny P, Geerts S: Pig-farming systems and porcine cysticercosis in the north of Cameroon. J Helminthol 2010, 84(04):441-446.
• [9]Phiri IK, Dorny P, Gabriel S, Willingham AL, Speybroeck N, Vercruysse J: The prevalence of porcine cysticercosis in eastern and southern provinces of Zambia. Vet Parasitol 2002, 108(1):31-39.
• [10]Commission on Tropical Diseases [International League Against Epilepsy]: Relationship between epilepsy and tropical diseases. Epilepsia 1994, 35:89-93.
• [11]García HH, Del Brutto OH: Imaging findings in neurocysticercosis. Acta Trop 2003, 87(1):71-78.
• [12]Flisser A: Where are the tapeworms? Parasitol Int 2006, 55(Supplement 1):S117-S120.
• [13]Pouedet MSR, Zoli AP, Vondou L, Assana E, Speybroeck N, Berkvens D, Dorny P, Brandt J, Geerts S: Epidemiological survey of swine cysticercosis in two rural communities of West-Cameroon. Vet Parasitol 2002, 106(1):45-54.
• [14]Sikasunge CS, Phiri IK, Phiri AM, Dorny P, Siziya S, Willingham Iii AL: Risk factors associated with porcine cysticercosis in selected districts of Eastern and Southern provinces of Zambia. Vet Parasitol 2007, 143(1):59-66.
• [15]Widdowson MA, Cook AJC, Williams JJ, Argaes F, Rodriguez I, Dominguez JL, Rodriguez R: Investigation of risk factors for porcine Taenia solium cysticercosis: a multiple regression analysis of a cross-sectional study in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2000, 94:620-624.
• [16]Alban L, Boes J, Kreiner H, Petersen JV, Willeberg P: Towards a risk-based surveillance for trichinella spp. in danish pig production. Prev Vet Med 2008, 87(3–4):340-357.
• [17]Schuppers ME, Frey CF, Gottstein B, Stärk KDC, Kihm U, Regula G: Comparing the demonstration of freedom from trichinella infection of domestic pigs by traditional and risk-based surveillance. Epidemiol Infect 2010, 138(09):1242-1251.
• [18]van der Giessen J, Fonville M, Bouwknegt M, Langelaar M, Vollema A: Seroprevalence of trichinella spiralis and toxoplasma gondii in pigs from different housing systems in The Netherlands. Vet Parasitol 2007, 148(3–4):371-374.
• [19]Tenter AM, Heckeroth AR, Weiss LM: Toxoplasma gondii: from animals to humans. Int J Parasitol 2000, 30(12–13):1217-1258.
• [20]Dubey JP: A review of toxoplasmosis in pigs. Vet Parasitol 1986, 19(3–4):181-223.
• [21]Kijlstra A, Eissen OA, Cornelissen J, Munniksma K, Eijck I, Kortbeek T: Toxoplasma gondii infection in animal-friendly pig production systems. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004, 45(9):3165.
• [22]Bengis RG, Kock RA, Fischer J: Infectious animal diseases: the wildlife/livestock interface. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epizoot 2002, 21(1):53-66.
• [23]Anderson EC, Hutchings GH, Mukarati N, Wilkinson PJ: African swine fever virus infection of the bushpig (Potamochoerus porcus) and its significance in the epidemiology of the disease. Vet Microbiol 1998, 62(1):1-15.
• [24]Lubisi BA, Bastos ADS, Dwarka RM, Vosloo W: Molecular epidemiology of African swine fever in East Africa. Arch Virol 2005, 150(12):2439-2452.
• [25]Jori F, Bastos ADS: Role of wild suids in the epidemiology of African swine fever. EcoHealth 2009, 6(2):296-310.
• [26]African Swine Fever. Kenya; http://www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Reviewreport/Review?page_refer=MapEventSummary&reportid=10307 webcite
• [27]Simo G, Asonganyi T, Nkinin SW, Njiokou F, Herder S: High prevalence of trypanosoma brucei gambiense group 1 in pigs from the fontem sleeping sickness focus in Cameroon. Vet Parasitol 2006, 139(1–3):57-66.
• [28]Waiswa C, Picozzi K, Katunguka-Rwakishaya E, Olaho-Mukani W, Musoke RA, Welburn SC: Glossina fuscipes fuscipes in the trypanosomiasis endemic areas of south eastern uganda: apparent density, trypanosome infection rates and host feeding preferences. Acta Trop 2006, 99(1):23-29.
• [29]von Wissmann B, Machila N, Picozzi K, Fèvre EM, Barend M, Handel IG, Welburn SC: Factors associated with acquisition of human infective and animal infective trypanosome infections in domestic livestock in western Kenya. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2011, 5(1):e941.
• [30]Stewart TB, Hale OM: Losses to internal parasites in swine production. J Anim Sci 1988, 66(6):1548-1554.
• [31]Nansen P, Roepstorff A: Parasitic helminths of the pig: factors influencing transmission and infection levels. Int J Parasitol 1999, 29(6):877-891.
• [32]Kagira JM, Kanyari PN, Githigia SM, Maingi N, Ng’ang’a JC, Gachohi JM: Risk factors associated with occurrence of nematodes in free range pigs in Busia District, Kenya. Trop Anim Health Prod 2012, 44(3):657-664.
• [33]Laughlin K, Mendl M: Pigs shift too: foraging strategies and spatial memory in the domestic pig. Anim Behav 2000, 60(3):403-410.
• [34]Held S, Baumgartner J, KilBride A, Byrne RW, Mendl M: Foraging behaviour in domestic pigs (Sus scrofa): remembering and prioritizing food sites of different value. Anim Cogn 2005, 8(2):114-121.
• [35]Copado F, de Aluja AS, Mayagoitia L, Galindo F: The behaviour of free ranging pigs in the Mexican tropics and its relationships with human faeces consumption. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2004, 88(3–4):243-252.
• [36]Burt WH: Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J Mammal 1943, 24(3):346-352.
• [37]Harris S, Cresswell WJ, Forde PG, Trewhella WJ, Woollard T, Wray S: Home range analysis using radio tracking data–a review of problems and techniques particularly as applied to the study of mammals. Mammal Review 1990, 20(2 3):97-123.
• [38]Worton BJ: A review of models of home range for animal movement. Ecol Model 1987, 38(3–4):277-298.
• [39]Burgman MA, Fox JC: Bias in species range estimates from minimum convex polygons: implications for conservation and options for improved planning. Anim Conserv 2003, 6(01):19-28.
• [40]Getz WM, Wilmers CC: A local nearest neighbor convex hull construction of home ranges and utilization distributions. Ecography 2004, 27(4):489-505.
• [41]van Beest FM, Rivrud IM, Loe LE, Milner JM, Mysterud A: What determines variation in home range size across spatiotemporal scales in a large browsing herbivore? J Anim Ecol 2011, 80(4):771-785.
• [42]Mayer JJ, Brisbin I: Wild pigs in the United States: their history, comparative morphology, and current status. : University of Georgia Press; 2008.
• [43]Baber DW, Coblentz BE: Density, home range, habitat use, and reproduction in feral pigs on Santa Catalina Island. J Mammal 1986, 67(3):512-525.
• [44]Nugent G, Whitford J, Young N: Use of released pigs as sentinels for mycobacterium bovis. J Wildl Dis 2002, 38(4):665.
• [45]Kristjanson P, Krishna A, Radeny M, Nindo W: Pathways out of Poverty in Western Kenya and the Role of Livestock. Nairobi, Kenya: ; 2004:28. [Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Working Paper no. 14]
• [46]Beyer H: Hawths analysis tools for ArcGIS. 2005. http://www.spatialecology.com/htools/overview.php webcite
• [47]ILRI GIS Unit. http://www.ilri.org/gis webcite
• [48]Mutua FK, Randolph TF, Arimi SM, Kitala PM, Githigia SM, Willingham AL, Njeruh FM: Palpable lingual cysts, a possible indicator of porcine cysticercosis, in Teso District, Western Kenya. J Swine Health and Production 2007, 15(4):206.
• [49]McMaster Egg Counting Technique. http://cal.vet.upenn.edu/projects/parasit06/website/mcmaster.htm webcite
• [50]Ash LR, Orihel TC, Savioli L: Training Manual on DiagnosisBench aids for the diagnosis of Intestinal Parasites, Tutors Guide. Geneva,Organization: World Health Organization; 1994. [WHO/CTD/ SIP/98.2, Schistosomaisis and Intestinal Parasites Unit, Division of Control of Tropical Diseases,intestinal parasites]
• [51]Harrison LJS, Joshua GWP, Wright SH, Parkhouse RME: Specific detection of circulating surface/secreted glycoproteins of viable cysticerci in Taenia saginata cysticercosis. Parasite Immunol 1989, 11(4):351-370.
• [52]LoCoH: A k-NNCH Implementation. http://locoh.cnr.berkeley.edu/rtutorial webcite
• [53]R core development team: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation Statistical Computing; 2008. www.r-project.org webcite
• [54]Harrison LJ, Parkhouse RM: Taenia saginata and Taenia solium: reciprocal models. Acta Leiden 1989, 57(2):143.
• [55]Robert S, Dancosse J, Dallaire A: Some observations on the role of environment and genetics in behaviour of wild and domestic forms of Sus scrofa (European wild boars and domestic pigs). Appl Anim Behav Sci 1987, 17(3):253-262.
• [56]Fraser D: The role of behavior in swine production: a review of research. Appl Anim Ethol 1984, 11(4):317-339.
• [57]Sarti E, Schantz PM, Plancarte A, Wilson M, Gutierrez IO, Aguilera J, Roberts J, Flisser A: Epidemiological investigation of taenia solium taeniasis and cysticercosis in a rural village of michoacan state, Mexico. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1992, 88(1):49-52.
• [58]Kagira JM, Maingi N, Kanyari PWN, Githigia SM, Ng’ang’a JC, Gachohi JM: Seroprevalence of cysticercus cellulosae and associated risk factors in free-range pigs in Kenya. J Helminthol 2010, 84(04):398-403.
• [59]Kamal K, Chambers R: Handbook on community-led total sanitation. London: Plan UK; 2008.
• [60]Levy M, Dewey C, Weersink A, Mutua F: Comparative profitability of pig butcher businesses in western Kenya. Durban, South Africa: ; 2009. [International Symposia on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics (ISVEE) proceedings, ISVEE 12: Proceedings of the 12th Symposium of the International Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics] 2:544 ISSN: 0754-2186
• [61]Peter RJ, Van den Bossche P, Penzhorn BL, Sharp B: Tick, fly, and mosquito control: lessons from the past, solutions for the future. Vet Parasitol 2005, 132(3):205-215.