By Tapiwa Chatikobo
Africa-Press – Zimbabwe. Since 2016, January disease (theileriosis) has decimated more than half a million cattle in many rural parts of Zimbabwe.
Nearly all our study sites have been affected by the disease, with the exception of Matobo, where the climate is much drier and, therefore, ticks are less prolific than in the relatively wetter areas.
For many, the impacts have been really severe, with whole herds wiped out reducing the ability to plough, supply manure and get milk for the family.
In our discussions of ‘success’ rank transitions, many pointed to January Disease as the most significant negative shock of the past years, setting people back from earlier upward livelihood trajectories.
The disease is caused by the blood parasite called Theileria parva bovis, which is conventionally transmitted by the brown ear tick (Rhipicephalus appendiculatus), although for a discussion of the many uncertainties involved.
A combination of factors led to the outbreak of January Disease in the country, including the incessant rains of 2016-17, only sporadic dipping, uncontrolled cattle movements and the spread of ticks.
Since then, cattle herders have had to respond, often without the support of formal veterinary services.
Cattle owners use a wide range of strategies to treat or prevent the disease.
They use a mix of traditional plant remedies and biomedicines. Oxytetracycline such as Terramycin, Limoxin, Copamycin, Utratet and many others features prominently as antibiotics used to treat the disease.
These antibiotics are sourced within and outside Zimbabwe, including from Zambia and South Africa.
Nearly nine years on from the 2016-17 outbreak, there are now some established local specialists who treat sick animals for a fee. For example, in Siboza area in Zvishavane, one cattle owner said that when her animals fall sick, she consults a retired wildlife veterinarian who often comes with his own biomedicines to treat the sick animals. He charges US$20 per sick animal.
Others have learnt through their own experiments how to treat the disease.
For example, LC is one of the most careful and assiduous cattle farmers in Mvurwi who owns over 60 cattle.
He told us that he never lost a single animal to January Disease since its outbreak in his area. When January Disease broke out, he spent some time moving around with state veterinarians who were treating sick animals.
However, despite treating the sick animals with biomedicines, he said the treated cattle continued to die.
Upon conducting post-mortems of the dead animals, he realised that the reticulum (susu) was ‘always hard and dry’. Thus, he came to the conclusion that cattle were dying because of constipation. Realising this, he doses sick animals with cooking oil in quantities of 350ml per young animal and 750ml for adult animals.
The cooking oil works like a laxative. In addition, he also injects the sick animal with intramuscular injections of Butachem and any other short/long acting oxytetracycline such as Terramycin, Penicillin and Limoxin. He injects an affected animal with 10ml dosages of Butachem, Terramycin and Penicillin for three consecutive days.
LC admits that this treatment regime was not found in ‘veterinary books’, but was based on his own experimentation. Overall, LC has been able to develop an effective remedy to deal with the disease.
For constipation problems associated with January disease, some use unused motor oil with salt to treat an affected animal.
For example, EC, who owns eight cattle in Mvurwi doses with half of 330ml bottle of unused motor with a teaspoon of salt to an affected animal.
This, he said, ‘loosens’ the stomach of the animal. Again, as in the case of LC, EC he has successfully managed to save his sick animals.
Similarly, one A2 farmer in Gutu told us that he “only lost animals through January disease in the early years when he didn’t know how to manage it, but now knows how to control it”.
Many make use of traditional medicines in the absence of effective biomedicines. A variety of plants are used to treat January Disease.
Such plants are mixed to make ‘maguchu’ (a strong drench), which will then be fed to the sick animal through the mouth in doses of 300ml or so, depending with size of the animal. However, those who were using these traditional medicines were reluctant to share with us these remedies.
In other places, pastors of local churches are giving their followers ‘minato’ (holy remedies, which might be water or mealie meal) to prevent the disease from striking their kraals.
This is often sprayed or sprinkled on animals. They believed that the disease was the work of the devil, and could be prevented through divine intervention.
As one local pastor commented, “My son, inoculating your animals with biomedicines is fine, but we must put our trust in God.”
Many cattle owners have tried to treat the disease using modern medicines, with very limited success. As a result, there is a growing dismissal or even distrust of these modern biomedicines.
As one farmer declared: “Injecting animals with these modern medicines is a worst of time and money”.
Others believe that the locally available modern medicines and acaricides are no longer so effective, and cattle continue to die after receiving treatment.
As a result, some cattle owners prefer biomedicines to treat the disease and acaricides to control ticks from South Africa and Zambia.
For those who have successfully managed to treat the disease with veterinary biomedicines, two things have been central to their success.
First, treatment has to be delivered swiftly, and in correct dosages to ensure survival of the animals.
This means that herders have to be particularly alert to infections, and should pose a sound knowledge of the symptoms of the disease.
Such symptoms include lack of appetite, swollen lymph nodes and difficulties in breathing. In other words, the disease has to be caught early to ensure high chances of survival.
Second, they emphasised that sick animals must be kept away from drinking water for a full day after receiving the injections to ensure that treatment does not get ‘diluted’.
Others inoculate their unaffected animals periodically using Butachem and other Oxytetracycline drugs such as Terramycin.
When an animal falls sick, many prefer to sell it to local butcheries and salvage some money instead of trying to treat the animal. Sick animals are bought for a pittance.
In our Gutu and Masvingo sites, at the height of the outbreak, a sick animal was sold for between US$30 and US$50. Indeed, a few local entrepreneurial people made their fortunes through this business.
In some cases, ‘local specialists’ with knowledge on how to treat affected animals have been buying sick animals on the cheap and successfully treat them.
In Msipane area, one local specialist has successfully managed to build a sizeable herd of 30 cattle through buying sick animals, and reviving them. He transports the sick animals in his scotch-cart to his homestead for treatment.
In conclusion, there is no magic solution to January disease in cattle.
The best results are achieved through early diagnosis, effective dipping and close monitoring of the herd.
Herd owners deploy a wide range of remedies to treat the disease, which may include a combination of biomedicines and herbal concoctions.
In the absence of effective and widespread veterinary care and questions raised about the efficacy of medicines bought in local shops, local experimentation and improvisation important.
Reliance on ‘local experts’ is crucial, some of whom now sell their expertise, while others share their learning with their community.
As environments change – through shifts in land use, climate change and so on – so do disease ecologies, this means constant adaptation to changing disease threats is needed.
Knowledge about diseases that have such devastating impact is essential, but reliance on formal expert knowledge from veterinary departments is inadequate.
Working with local experts and galvanising responses to such disasters from below is critical but is currently only emerging sporadically and without coordination.
A more integrated approach to participatory disease surveillance and response is urgently needed in Zimbabwe as the economic cost of losses of livestock as has occurred through January Disease is massive.
As argued before, this requires taking local knowledge and experience seriously, understanding changing tick ecologies, shifts in disease incidence and the efficacy of different treatment approaches.
This will require research together with farmers across the country. The hundreds of millions of dollars lost through disease deaths surely provides a justification for such an investment urgently.
Source: NewsDay
For More News And Analysis About Zimbabwe Follow Africa-Press
